Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1 Filed 03/11/1987 Page 1 of 7

IN THE U. S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

MILLER FRANK JOHNSON, on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
VB.
RICHARD INSLEY, Administrator, G. PIERCE WOOD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES,
Defendants.
-------------------------------------,
COMPLAINT

Civil Action No. CLASS ACTION

I.

INTRODUCTION

1. This is a suit brought pursuant to 42 U. S. C. §l983 to redress

violations of the 1st, 5th. 6th and 14th Amendments to the United States

Constitution.

2. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief under the 1st

and 14th Amendments to prevent the Defendants from restricting their

association with others or their liberty for reasons not related to treatment.

Plaintiffs allege that they are unnecessarily restricted while on the grounds of

G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital and that they are denied access to

telephones for reasons unrelated to their treatment needs. Plaintiffs also

allege that they are being held at G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital without

receiving treatment because the Defendants have failed to provide alternative,

less restrictive facilities in their home communities.

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1 Filed 03/11/1987 Page 2 of 7

3. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to prevent the Defendants from denying them access to the courts. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' failure to provide them with a law library or attorney representation effectively denies them this access.

II.

JURISDICTION

4. This court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to

28 U.S.C. fU331, 1343(3), 2201(a), 2202 and 42 U.S.C. §i983.

5 • The unlawful practices and policies alleged below were and are

now being committed by the Defendant within the Middle District of Florida.

III.

PARTIES

6. Plaintiff, MILLER FRANK JOHNSON, is a psychiatric patient at

G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital in DeSoto County, Florida.

7. Defendant, RICHARD INSLEY, is the Administrator of G.

Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, DeSoto County, Florida.

8. Defendant, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

REHABILITATIVE SERVICES (HRS), is the department of state government

responsible for providing a comprehensive statewide program of mental health

care. As a result, HRS exercises executive and administrative supervision

over all mental health facilities in the state of Florida, including G. Pierce

Wood Memorial Hospital.

IV.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

9. This action is brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (a) and

(b) since Defendants have acted in a manner generally applicable to the class

as a whole.

- 2-

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1 Filed 03/11/1987 Page 3 of 7
10. The Plaintiff class consists of all present and future patients at G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital.
11. This action is properly brought as a class action because: a. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable. b. Questions of law and fact common to the class include, but
are not limited to, whether the defendants have deprived them of: 1) their right to movement and freedom from unreasonable
restraint; 2) their right to the least restrictive appropriate available
treatment; 3) their right to communicate freely and privately with
persons outside the facility and to use telephones in the least restrictive manner;
4) their right to liberty; 5) their right to associate with other patients of their choice; 6) their right of access to the courts. c. The Plaintiff's claims are typical of those of the class. Plaintiff is a patient at G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital who has been denied: 1) his right to movement and freedom from unreasonable restraint; 2) his right to the least restrictive appropriate available treatment;
- 3-

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1 Filed 03/11/1987 Page 4 of 7

3) his right to communicate freely and privately with persons outside the facility and to use telephones in the least restrictive manner;
4) his right to liberty; 5) his right to associate with other patients of his choice; 6) his right of access to the courts. 12 • The Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect and represent the interests of the class since all his claims are identical to the claims of the class as a whole and he has retained competent counsel to represent him and others similarly situated. 13. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class as a whole.

V.

FACTS

14. Plaintiff, Miller Frank Johsnon, is a patient at G. Pierce Wood

Memorial Hospital (the hospital), a state-operated psychiatric treatment facility

housing over 800 people like the plaintiff.

15. Plaintiffs' ability to move freely about the hospital grounds is

governed by whether they possess grounds privileges.

16. Grounds privileges are initially granted by a treatment team of

mental health professionals, but they are routinely revoked and reinstated by

ward staff who possess no more than a high school diploma.

17. As a result, Plaintiffs' rights to freedom of movement and

liberty are being restricted, not for any reasons related to their treatment,

but to punish them for disobedience, coerce them into following hospital rules

or other rules arbitrarily created by the hospital staff and to serve the

convenience of the hospital staff.

- 4-

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1 Filed 03/11/1987 Page 5 of 7

18. The Plaintiffs have been deprived of access to public telephones because of there are no telephones on the wards and because of arbitrary restrictions, not related to their treatment placed on the use of telephones.
19. The Plaintiffs have been deprived of access to the courts because there is no law library available to them and they do not have access to attorneys.
20. As to the representative Plaintiff, Miller Frank Johnson, at least six months ago his doctors determined that he was ready to be discharged from G. P. W•
21. Mr. Johnson has not been discharged, in part, because of a lack of alternative treatment services in the communities served by the hospital.

VII •

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT I

22. The Defendants' confinement of Plaintiffs for reasons other

than treatment has deprived them of their right to associate with other

patients of their own choosing in violation of the First Amendment to the

United States Constitution, and thereby 42 U. S . C. 11983.

COUNT II 23. The Defendants' confinement of Plaintiffs for reasons other than treatment has deprived them of their liberty without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and thereby 42 U. S. C. 11983.

- 5-

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1 Filed 03/11/1987 Page 6 of 7

COUNT III 24. Defendants' restrictions on access to public telephones restricts the Plaintiffs' ability to associate with others and deprives them of their liberty in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U. S . Constitution and thereby 42 U. S. C. § 1983.

COUNT IV 25. Defendants' failure to provide legal assistance denies Plaintiffs access to the courts in violation of the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution and thereby 42 U. S. C. §1983.

VIII.

IRREPARABLE HARM

26. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law to

secure redress. Unless restrained and enjoined by tbis Court, Defendants

will continue to deny Plaintiffs their rights under the Constitution of the

United States. By virtue of the foregoing, Plaintiffs have suffered and will

continue to suffer immediate and irreparable injury.

IX.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court:

a) Certify this action as a class action;

b) Grant a jury trial on all issues on which Plaintiffs are entitled

as a matter of right;

c) Declare that Defendants' confinement and restriction of patients

for reasons other than treatment violates their rights as guaranteed by the

First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

- 6-

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB

Document 1

Filed 03/11/1987
--,/

Page 7 of 7

d) Grant preliminary and permanent injunctive relief restraining and enjoining the Defendants, their officers, agents, employees, attorneys, and successors in office, and all other persons in active concert and participation with them, from any further confinement or restriction of patients for purposes other than treatment;
e) Award Plaintiffs costs and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988; and
f) Grant any other relief the Court deems equitable. Respectfully submitted,

DATED: March 11, 1987 Inc.

"..-----~~~~;K:.::G::.E.~~;;e.~~~~_A_CL.
Green. Eisenberg • Cohen 301 Clematis Street, Suite 200 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Telephone: 305/659-2009
Attorney for Plaintiffs
/cjc

- 7-

 
 Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1319 Filed 06/28/2001 Page 1 of 44

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

6~~
01 JUN 28 Pl112: 36

MILLER FRANK JOHNSON, et al., Plaintiffs,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Intervenor,
v. MICHAEL MURPHY, et al.,
Defendants.
I
-------------------------------,

Case No. 8:87-Civ-369-T-24TBM

ORDER This cause came before the Court on a non-jury trial held during the weeks of August 7, 2000 through September 8, 2000. During the trial, the parties called numerous factual and expert witnesses and introduced documentary evidence. Subsequent to the trial, the parties submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
BACKGROUND This case was originally filed on March 11, 1987 by a class of plaintiffs on behalf of mentally ill persons who are or have been patients at G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital ("GPW"), a state psychiatric hospital in Arcadia, Florida. In 1989, the case was partially settled by a consent decree, with the Court

SCAl~l~bU

J3'~

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1319 Filed 06/28/2001 Page 2 of 44
retaining jurisdiction over the case. Court monitors were appointed to monitor compliance with the aforementioned consent decree. On April 2, 1998, the United States intervened in this action pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act ("CRIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1997, et seq. In its complaint in intervention, the United States alleges that conditions at GPW violate the constitutional rights of current and former patients. The United States also alleges that the defendants1 are violating the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1213112134, by failing to provide services and programs to current and former GPW patients in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. The United States seeks prospective injunctive relief on behalf of these current and former GPW patients.
FINDINGS OF FACT General:
G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital is a state psychiatric hospital located in Arcadia, Florida. The overwhelming majority of patients served at GPW have severe and persistent mental illnesses. At anyone time, the State of Florida serves
1G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital; The Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services; Robert Williams, in his official capacity; the State of Floridai Jeb Bush. Governor of the State of Florida; Ed Feaver, in his official capacity; Robert Constatine, in his official capacitYi Frances Gibbons, in her official capacity; Lynn Richard, in her official capacitYi Don Dixon, in his official capacitYi Sue Gray, in her official capacity; and Martin Van Holden, in his capacity as Administrator of G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital.
2

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1319 Filed 06/28/2001 Page 3 of 44
approximately 350 persons at GPW, and over eighty-five percent of those patients are involuntarily committed pursuant to the Baker Act, Fla. Stat. Chpt. 394. Under 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2), current and former patients of GPW are ~qualified individuals with disabilities" as defined by ~he Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The defendants in this case are "public entities" that are subject to the requirements of Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 (1) (B) .
There are approximately thirty admissions to GPW each month, and approximately the same number of discharges. Persons discharged from GPW are generally discharged to one of the five Department of Children and Family Services districts in GPW's cachement area, Districts 5, 6, 8, 14 and 15. These five districts cover nineteen counties in central Florida. Reasonab1e Care and Safety:
GPW provides conditions of reasonable care and safety to its patients. GPW takes reasonable steps to minimize or prevent harm to GPW patients, and the conditions of care and safety at GPW comply with accepted standards of professional judgment. Specifically, GPW provides its patients with adequate supervision; adequate treatment for self-injurious or assaultive behavior; adequate protection from environmental hazards; and adequate systems and procedures regarding the investigation of and response to adverse incidents.
3

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1319 Filed 06/28/2001 Page 4 of 44
Supervision With regard to adequate supervision of patients at the Hospital, GPW bases its staffing on a number of variables such as the number of new admissions that the hospital receives, and on information related to staffi~g needs that is gathered from the medical staff by the clinical director. Tr. 8/24, 29.4-30.8. 2 As there are no national standards that set guidelines for psychiatric staffing, GPW bases its staffing decisions on institutional specific factors. Id. GPW has fourteen full-time psychiatric positions, and a fifteenth position that primarily involves supervisory and administrative duties. Tr. 8/30, 115.17-24. Additionally, the hospital has six general care service physicians. Tr. 8/30, 115.25-116.5. Similarly, nurses at GPW are provided pursuant to a formal ~Plan for Providing Nursing Care" which is based on ~ideal" nurse staffing levels. Tr. 8/30, 37, 39, and 59. Consistent with the American Nurses' Association's standards, the nurse staffing program at GPW is based on patient need rather than on hours per patient per day. Tr. 8/30, 45-46. While more nurses at GPW would be ideal, the hospital is still able to meet the nursing care needs of its patients with the nursing staff that is currently provided. Tr. 8/30, 59. As to semi-professional and/or non-professional staff
2Re ferences to trial transcripts are given in the following format: "Tr. month/day, page.line-page.line".
4

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1319 Filed 06/28/2001 Page 5 of 44
at the hospital, GPW provides registered nurse supervision of all "LPN" nurses on duty. Tr. 9/5, 41. Furthermore, the hospital has systems in place to monitor direct staff and nursing deficiencies, to include a corrective action plan if staffing deficiencies are found. Tr. 9/5, 19-24, 61-62.
Treatment for Self-Injurious or Assaultive Behavior With regard to treatment for self-injurious or assaultive patient behavior, GPW has a system in place where such behavior is noted on patient records; reviewed by treatment teams as to patient needs and progress; and modified depending on patient progress, team input, and response to precaution levels. Tr. 8/23, 187.10-213.12; Exhibit 0-122 at 25-26. GPW also has an independent mortality review process by which fatal incidents at the hospital are sometimes reviewed by the University of South Florida Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Medicine. Exhibit 0-65; Tr. 8/30, 133.17-22. Patients who have indications and/or histories of self-injurious or assaultive behavior are placed on appropriate precautionary levels and participate in specific treatments designed to decrease their risk of harm. See,~, Case of Tonya W., Exhibit 0-122 at 48-50; Tr. 8/24. 10.3-13.11; Case of Paul B., Exhibit 0-122 at 25-26; Tr. 8/23, 187.10-213.12. Further, the hospital has a system in place whereby a peer review committee meets after a death occurs to evaluate and make recommendations as to what steps, if any, need to be taken to
5

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1319 Filed 06/28/2001 Page 6 of 44
ensure the safety of patients at the hospital. Tr. 8/30, 123.9124.9, Case of Rodney S., DOJ Exhibit 182A at 6-7 (noting postincident recommendations made by mortality review committee) .
With mentally ill patients like those at GPW, there is often no real way to predict who will commit suicide or injure themselves due to the fact that such behavior is often an impulsive event that is based on unidentifiable factors. Exhibit D-24; Tr. 8/31, 148.2-151.15, 154.24-155.10. However, in cases where patients do show identifiable signs of self-injurious behavior, the hospital has treatment teams that meet with those patients to evaluate their c~ndition. Case of Leon G., Tr. 8/30, 204.6-205.19. Once a self-i~jurious patient's condition is evaluated, status notes are nade and hospital staff members take action in accordance with the patient's treatment plan. Id. Further, in cases where patients exhibit signs of immediate harm to themselves or others, they are placed on ~one-on-one" precautions, are immediately seen by a doctor, and are taken out of restraints (if needed) as soon as possible. Tr. 8/24, 87.1090.14; 91.1-5.
Protection from Environmental Hazards As a general observation, the rate of patient injuries at GPW is less than the national average as measured in national surveys of other large state psychiatric hospitals. Tr. 8/31, 160.12-164.3. During the relevant time periods in this matter,
6

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1319 Filed 06/28/2001 Page 7 of 44
the number of serious injuries to patients from environmental hazards was relatively low and there were no patterns of negligence present. Tr. 8/28, 156.12-159.8; Exhibit 0-120 at 6264. As to "contraband" at the hospital (such as drugs or weapons), staff at the hospital are generally not allowed to search patients, but searches are conducted when there is probable cause and in emergercy circumstances. Tr. 9/5, 165.1922; 167.8-169.6. Most contr band found at the hospital, however, is brought in by visitors, and the staff at the hospital calls the local sheriff's department if they suspect that a visitor has brought in illegal contraband. Tr. 9/5, 170.17-171.10. As to subjective contraband (such as shoelaces, belts, towels, etc.), restrictions are placed on patients on a case-by-case basis. The hospital's "subjective contraband" policy attempts to maintain as much of a "home-like" environment as possible. Tr. 9/6, 117.7119.18.
As to structural safety hazards at the hospital (such as doorknobs, plumbing fixtures, etc.), the hospital evaluates safety through an interaction between a specific environment and the patients in that environment based on level of supervision and level of privileges in a particular location. Tr. 8/28, 163.8-164.18. While it is impossible to make any environment completely free of hazards and accidents have occurred due to environmental hazards, GPW acts to remove suicide and safety
7

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1319 Filed 06/28/2001 Page 8 of 44
hazards while attempting to balance the comfort, self-esteem, and self-respect of its patients. Tr. 8/30, 57. Pursuant to a review by the hospital's engineering department, GPW has enacted an "action plan" for the removal of environmental hazards. Tr. 8/8, 155.14-157.14. In accordance with its action plan, the hospital has removed environmental hazards such as door knobs, ceiling grids, and plumbing fixtures, and has replaced glass fixtures with lexon plexi-glass. Tr. 9/5, 181.18-183.24.
Investigation and Respomse to Adverse Incidents At GPW, reports of incidents are recorded on "Resident Occurrence Report" forms ("ROR"). While many hospitals do not record commonplace events (such as cursing, shouting, or pacing) on formal reports, GPW "over-reports" incidents in that it has a policy of recording common events that would not be recorded elsewhere. Tr. 9/5, 244.10-246.4; Tr. 9/6, 93.14-24. Many of the events reported by GPW are considered normal or trivial at other hospitals. Tr. 8/28, 168.3-18. However, GPW's reporting policy is based on the premise that an excess of information is better than not getting enough information. Tr. 9/6, 92.2493.24. This policy results in a large number of ROR's, many of which are concerning minor incidents. See ide However, in some ROR's filed during the times relevant to this action, certain patients at the hospital made serious allegations of rape and sexual assault. Serious incident reports are investigated by the
8

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1319 Filed 06/28/2001 Page 9 of 44
hospital, and with regard to the aforementioned allegations of rape and sexual assault, pos~-report investigations found that they were unsubstantiated·. There have been no substantiated incidents of rape or sexual assault at the hospital. Tr. 9/6, 66.2-15; 99.8-100.14; Tr. 9/5, 173.25-174.21; 216.23-217.17. Similarly, while some ROR's at the hospital contain patient allegations of other serious activity or violations (such as illegal drug use), few of those allegations turned out to be substantiated. Tr. 9/6, 116.4-22. Additionally, many ROR's which contain incidents such as patient assaults or accidents are based on events where patients were not injured (such as verbal assaults by patients). Tr. 9/6, 105.16-108.11.
The hospital has in place programs to assure proper response to and investigations of adverse incidents. These programs include security investigations, internal hospital investigations, a patient grievance process, high risk reviews, retrospective case reviews, and mortality reviews. Tr. 9/5, 164.10-18; 9/6, 35-64. Information gathered from these programs is disseminated to treatment teams and staff members for assessments and modifications. Tr. 9/6, 114.20-115.2, 111.7-19. All "significant reportable events" (as that term is defined by the State) are reported to State officials pursuant to a formal "SRE" reporting policy. Tr. 9/6, 91.11-92.2; 94.8-95.3. Additionally, hospital investigators give priority to the
9

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1319 Filed 06/28/2001 Page 10 of 44
investigation of serious incident reports according to a standardized set of criteria set forth by the hospital. Tr. 9/6, 39.1-40.20; 9/6, 38.12-25. Such investigations are subjected to supervisory review and are often supplemented with follow-up investigations. Tr. 9/6, 39.1-40.20.
In addition to the procedures discussed above, Florida's Department of Children and Family Services operates an investigative unit known as Adult Protective Services which operates an ~abuse hotline" which GPW patients have access to. Tr. 9/6, 42.21-44.23. Hospital employees also have access to the hotline and are required to immediately report any instances of abuse that they observe. Id. Furthermore, the hospital's resident advocate and resident advocate attorney, along with the hospital administrator, are involved in the patient grievance process to assure that allegations of abuse and neglect are investigated on a multi-level basis. Tr. 9/6, 50.22-54.7. The hospital also has a Quality Management/Risk Management Department that identifies patterns and trends at the hospital based on patient and staff incidents. Tr. 9/6, 57.12-59.2; 58.10-59.2. As noted above, the hospital also has a mortality review process by which incidents of death are sometimes reviewed by the University of South Florida to determine whether there was appropriate care and conduct. Exhibit 0-65.
10

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1319 Filed 06/28/2001 Page 11 of 44

Standard of Professional Care

With respect to reasonab e care and safety of patients, GPW

takes reasonable steps to min'mize or prevent harm to GPW

patients, and the conditions of care and safety at GPW comply

with accepted standards of professional judgment. Accepted

standards of professional judgment in the field of psychiatry

should be based upon training, experience, judgment, and current

t~e peer reviewed literature in

field. Tr. 8/23, 39.4-40.15.

H~CA While organizations such as

and JCAHO do set some standards

for psychiatric hospitals, those standards exceed generally

accepted professional standards of care for patients at hospitals

like GPW. Tr. 8/23, 36.6-36.9, 37.23-24. Thus, the fact that a

hospital or part of a hospital has lost or does not have HFCA

and/or JCAHO accreditation does not necessarily mean that

accepted professional standards of care are not being utilized.

See id. At GPW, the treatment of self-injurious behavior (Tr.

8/23, 47.12-52.9); the supervision and care of patients (Tr.

8/30, 133.17-22; Tr. 9/5, 59-60; Tr. 8/30, 81-83); the prevention

of harm from environmental hazards (Tr. 8/28, 164.19-24); and the

reporting and investigation of adverse incidents (Tr. 9/6, 35-64)

all comply with accepted standards of professional judgment.

Treatment:

Patients at GPW are provided adequate treatment that

complies with accepted professional judgment, practice, and

11

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1319 Filed 06/28/2001 Page 12 of 44
standards. Specifically, patient assessment, treatment planning, provision of treatment, and discharge planning are adequate and acceptable.
Patient Assessment As a general guideline for patient assessment, GPW has developed a model assessment form which is found in its Psychology Department Manual. Tr. 8/31, 87.1-89.25. In 1996, Dr. Lyon, the Director of Psychology, developed a procedure to implement detailed psychological reports in conjunction with the hospital's protocol monitoring department. Tr. 8/31, 89.1391.11. In addition to the hospital's protocol audit of assessment records, Dr. Lyon developed a system of qualitative review of assessments when he took over as Director of Psychology in 1996. Tr. 8/31, 99.17-100.7; 207.6-15. Under this review process, a small number of initial patient assessments were found to be "poor" due to the fact that the assessment sheets were done in a "fill-in-the-blanks" tY1e manner. Tr. 8/31, 94.17-96.7. However, a vast majority of lhe assessment forms reviewed at the hospital were accurate in their observations and ranged from "adequate" to "quite good." Tr. 8/25, 88.19-90.3. With regard to poor assessments, the hospital implemented corrective action which included revising its Psychology Manual. Tr. 8/31, 96.1098.20. Further, in July of 1999, the hospital prepared a research paper which compared Positive and Negative Syndrome
12

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1319 Filed 06/28/2001 Page 13 of 44
Scale ("PANSS")3 test scores with results from national and international studies, as well as results from other Florida state hospitals. Exhibit 0-26. That research study showed that GPW was properly performing the PANSS test in conjunction with its assessment of patients. Tr. 8/31, 139.13-24.
Treatment Planning Treatment planning at GPW iS,a process that encompasses a patient's entire chart, a specific treatment plan, and the specific knowledge of treating professionals. Tr. 8/23, 107.1218. Treatment planning for a patient is also a fluid concept in that it may change based on progress, specific needs, and specific behavior. Tr. 8/23, 187.10-213.12. Treatment plans at the hospital are implemented with the goal of reducing inappropriate behavior and symptoms and preparing the patient for discharge. Tr. 8/23, 138.24-144.6. Treatment planning at GPW includes, inter alia, therapeutic activities, OBT, and individual psychotherapy. Tr. 8/24, 10.3-13.11. Through specific individual treatment plans, patient charts, and progress notes, treatment plans at GPW are informative as to what type of treatment a patient is receiving, to include what type of medication, if any, a patient is taking. Tr. 8/24, 140.2-7; 140.11-15; Exhibit 0-135. Frequent patient progress notes serve
3The PANNS rating scale is a type of assessment test that references a normative sample of schizophrenic patients as a basis for comparison. Tr. 8/31, 110.22-111.14.
13

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1319 Filed 06/28/2001 Page 14 of 44
to inform treatment prOfeSSio!alS of changes in a patient's treatment and medication regi e. Tr. 8/24, 147.1-18; 149.20-25; 150.3-17. Further, treatment team meetings with patients are made part of treatment planning at GPW. Exhibit 0-123 at 8-16. In summary, treatment planning at GPW consists of individualized treatment regimes, specific interventions, individual psychotherapy, group psychotherapy, rehabilitation, and individual psychopharmacologic interventions. Tr. 8/24, .93.1622.
Provision of Treatment The provision of psychological treatment at GPW is multifaceted. One method of treatment is "SIP meetings" or treatment team meetings wherein patients and treatment team members discuss past management and treatment issues. Tr. 8/24, 78.5-16. During treatment team meetings, team members at GPW are aware of the clinical histories of the participating patients, and discussions during these meetings are thoughtful and clinically informed. Exhibit 0-123 at 60. Patients at GPW are encouraged to engage in active treatment and psychosocial rehabilitation. Tr. 8/28, 72.25-79.22. Additionally, a significant number of staff members at GPW are trained and/or certified in substance abuse issues to provide treatment and support to patients with substance abuse problems. Tr. 8/31, 103.4-104.8.
14

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1319 Filed 06/28/2001 Page 15 of 44
Psychosocial rehabilitation at GPW is based on non-medical interventions designed to foster the rehabilitation of psychiatric patients and includes family therapy, skills training, vocational rehabilitation, and psychotherapy. Tr. 8/25, 76.2-19. While psychotherapy is one of the most common forms of psychosocial rehabilitation, many techniques are used in the field, and there are no widely accepted professional standards in psychosocial rehabilitation. Tr. 8/25, 79.5-80.21; Tr. 8/29, 137.24-140.24. At GPW, treatment professionals rely on their training and experience to choose the best form of psychosocial rehabilitation that is most likely to help individual patients. Tr. 8/25, 78.2-22. One particular model of psychosocial rehabilitation used by GPW in an adapted form is a "role recovery" model, which represents one of many professionally acceptable treatment methods in the field. Tr. 8/25, 83.19-85.5; Tr. 8/29, 236.1-237.16. GPW has a goal of twenty hours per week of therapeutic interventions, and patient contacts are made each day in various forms and durations. Exhibit 0-47; Tr. 8/29, 242.14-243.12; 245.6-20; Exhibit 0-114 at 11-12. Additionally, GPW has therapeutic programs and services available to patients such as on and off-ward training/skills programs; recreation and leisure activities; and grounds where patients are free to walk. Tr. 8/25, 124.1-125.14; 126.7-128.2; Exhibit 0-114 at 14-20. Finally, while there are no specific
15

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1319 Filed 06/28/2001 Page 16 of 44
programs at the hospital that are exclusively for Spanishspeaking patients, GPW has bi-lingual and multi-lingual staff members (who are fluent in Spanish and other languages) that help facilitate communication with non-English speaking patients. Tr. 8/31, 218.10-17.
Discharge Planning According to GPW policy, a patient's individual treatment plan is developed shortly after admission, and this plan or "SIP" includes discharge planning. DOJ Exhibit 148 at 2. Discharge planning is reviewed and modified during "SIP updates" or modifications, and community case managers often participate in SIP meetings to discuss discharge planning. Tr. 9/8, 96.17-98.8. Furthermore, patient discharge skills (such as bathing, taking medication, etc.) are annotated on discharge planning forms such as the "7001 Form" and the "Interdisciplinary Discharge Summary" form. Tr. 9/8,83.17-85.23. As an additional element of discharge planning, the hospital attempts to involve family members in the patient discharge process for support and patient needs. Tr. 9/8, 85.25-87.18. While evidence was presented at trial that some patients' discharge plans did not comply with hospital policy, discharge planning at GPW as a whole is adequate and acceptable. Tr. 9/8, 81.25-82.21; 178.9-18. Often, GPW's plan for discharge and placement is limited due to the fact that patients who are no
16

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1319 Filed 06/28/2001 Page 17 of 44
longer involuntarily committed sometimes choose not to cooperate with the hospital. Tr. 9/8, 93.24-96.15. However, community case managers are actively involved at the hospital in both discharge planning and discharge follow-up. Tr. 9/8, 69.2-70.25; Exhibit D-117 at 11-13. Community case managers that work with GPW as treatment team members are knowledgeable about placement, service options, and patients in their area. Tr. 9/8, 81.2582.9.
Standard of Professional Care As noted above, accepted standards and judgments in the field of psychiatry should be based upon training, experience, judgment, and current peer reviewed literature in the field. Tr. 8/23, 39.4-40.15. Also as noted above, there are no widely accepted professional standards in psychosocial rehabilitation. Tr. 8/25, 79.5-80.21; Tr. 8/29, 137.24-140.24. Patient assessment (Tr. 8/25, 89.13-91.11), treatment planning (Tr. 8/24, 93.2-93.7), provision of treatment (Tr. 8/24, 78.5-16; Tr. 8/25, 101.18-25; 103.8-15;, and discharge planning (Tr. 9/8, 81.2582.21; 178.9-18) are adequate and acceptable; and patients at GPW are provided adequate treatment that complies with accepted professional judgment, practice, and standards. Community Services: Current and former GPW patients are provided adequate community mental health services to meet their assessed
17

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1319 Filed 06/28/2001 Page 18 of 44
functional and clinical needs in an integrated setting that is appropriate to those needs.
Placement in Community Settings The defendants in this tter are placing persons with mental disabilities in commun'ty settings rather than in institutions when the relevan treatment professionals have determined that community placement is appropriate; the transfer from institutional care to a less restrictive setting is not opposed by the affected individual; and the placement can be reasonably accommodated, taking into account the resources available to the State and the needs of others with disabilities. Upon discharge from GPW, patients are provided several community placement options, (such as family homes, private apartments, assisted living facilities, etc.), according to their needs and abilities. Tr. 8/15, 58.3-5; 59.1-6; Tr. 9/8, 75.1976.5. While many factors influence the stability of community tenure for mentally ill patients (such as fluctuations in mental condition, resources, and need for crisis care), patients discharged from GPW are usually successful in remaining in community settings. Tr. 8/10, 83.5-84.5; Tr. 8/15, 84.3-85.6. Once patients are discharged into community settings, GPW continues to contact and follow-up with those patients pursuant to individual discharge plans. Tr. 8/15, 52.24-53.7. In June of 1999, GPW initiated a community outreach program based on a
18

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1319 Filed 06/28/2001 Page 19 of 44
"community ACT team" model. Tr. 9/5, 146.1-148.25. That community outreach program is designed to augment the discharge process by providing additioral support and services to patients in community settings. Tr. 9/5, 148.17-149.14. Once patients are discharged into community settings from the hospital, they are provided with sufficient "staff-to-client" support to meet their needs. Tr. 9/8, 42.7-~4. Further, the community settings in which patients are placed are integrated and less restrictive than a hospital or institutional setting. Tr. 8/17, 183.19-22.
In some cases, patients at GPW are discharged into assisted living facilities or "ALF's." ALF's are privately owned and operated facilities that provide living assistance to those in need of it. Tr. 8/15, 55.13-56.8. While there was evidence of poorly operated ALF's, assisted living facilities are perfectly acceptable as discharge options for some patients. Only a small percentage of patients from GPW are actually discharged into ALF's. DOJ Exhibit 212, Appendix Di DOJ Exhibit 333. Typically, over half of the patients at GPW are discharged into independent living or family homes, and 1nother twenty percent of patients are discharged into "group llving situations" sponsored by community health providers. Id.
Unnecessary Isolation The defendants' mental health program, as administered, does not result in unnecessary isolation of patients into segregated
19

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1319 Filed 06/28/2001 Page 20 of 44

settings. Consistent with the intent of Florida's "Mental Health

Act", the defendants in this matter strive to serve patients with

the least restrictive interve tions based on the individual needs

of each patient, within the s ope of available services. Tr.

9/6, 199.13-15; 201.17-201.25 Exhibit D-146A at §394.453.

Basic and core services to fa ilitate community integration are

found in all of the districts that comprise the GPW catchment
I
area. Tr. 9/7, 33.18-23. In~ependent reports and studies, such
I
as a February, 1999 report byloPPAGA and a May, 1998 report by

the Federal Department of Health and Human Services, have found

that Florida is employing a community-based system of mental

health care in a "least restrictive" environment. DOJ Exhibit

71; Exhibit D-100 at i-iii.

Array and Intensity of Community Services

The defendants are providing an appropriate array and

intensity of community servic s. The residential options

available to patients dischar ed from GPW are logistically

adequate due to the fact that few, if any, of them operate at

full capacity. Tr. 9/8, 45.2 18. As a whole, the defendants

provide a broad array of co nity services such as emergency

stabilization treatment;

ification services; inpatient

services; residential services; case management services; and

crisis intervention services. Tr. 9/7, 21.15-23.7; Tr. 9/8,

45.19-46.23; 178.20-180.10. In fact, GPW has innovative pilot

20

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1319 Filed 06/28/2001 Page 21 of 44

programs such as staff-intensive "independent settings" for high

risk individuals. Tr. 9/8, 57.16-58.21; 106.2-6; Exhibit D-117

at 9. As to residential discharge options, GPW provides a broad

array of discharge settings such as such as family homes, private

apartments, assisted living facilities, and group living

situations. Tr. 8/15, 58.3-5 59.1-6; Tr. 9/8, 75.19-76.5; DOJ

Exhibit 212 at Appendix D; DO Exhibit 333. There is typically a

low number of patients awaitir9 discharge at GPW with an average

wait of thirty to sixty daYS.~1 Tr. 9/7, 72.11-75.14. While some of the available discharge se tings are not in the best locations

or are not as clean as they s ould be, the totality of the evidence at trial showed thatl they are acceptable. Tr. 9/8,

107.18-109.3.

Dischar e Plannin

The defendants in this atter are providing appropriate

planning for patient dischar

appropriate assessment of the

needs of their patient popul

As noted previously, a

patient's individual treatme

is usually developed shortly

after admission to GPW, and

plan or "SIP" includes discharge

planning. DOJ Exhibit 148 a

Discharge planning is reviewed

and modified during

or modifications, and community

case managers often

te in SIP meetings to discuss

discharge planning. Tr. 9/8,

Furthermore, patient

discharge skills (such as ba hing, taking medication, etc.) are

21

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Documi ent 1319 Filed 06/28/2001 Page 22 of 44
I ! I
I
annotated on discharge Planni~g forms such as the "7001 Form" and the "Interdisciplinary DiSCha~ge Summary" form. Tr. 9/8,83.17-
I
85.23. As an additional element of discharge planning, the hospital attempts to:involve family members in the patient discharge process for support and patient needs. Tr. 9/8, 85.2587.18. Often, GPW's plan for discharge and placement is limited due to the fact that patients who are no longer involuntarily committed sometimes choose not to cooperate with the hospital. Tr. 9/8, 93.24-96.15. However, community case managers are actively involved at the hospital in both discharge planning and discharge follow-up. Tr. 9/8, 69.2-70.25; Exhibit 0-117 at 1113. Community case managers that work with GPW as treatment team members are knowledgeable about placement, service options, and patients in their area. Tr. 9/8, 81.25-82.9.
In addition to efforts conducted at GPW, service providers in the relevant discharge corrmunities determine patient needs based upon their specific involvement with the individuals that they serve and the individual needs that arise from those individual assessments. Tr. 9/7, 39.6-16. By operating under a decentralized organizational structure, each district is able to manage its community service system at a "grassroots level" which provides a program that is tailored to the individual needs of individual communities. Id.; OOJ Exhibit 80 at 5.
22

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1319 Filed 06/28/2001 Page 23 of 44
Standard of Professiona~ Care
I I
As to the provision of fommunity mental health services, there are no generally accepted "norms" or "quantifiable standards" in the field. Tr. 8/17, 172.19-176.1. Instead, standards of professional care are based upon training, experience, judgment, and current peer reviewed literature in the field. Tr. 9/8, 32.18-33.13. In this case, all aspects of the defendants' provision of community services comply with accepted professional standards of cate. Tr. 9/8, 81.25-82.21 (postplacement care); Tr. 9/8, 178.9-18 (discharge planning); Tr. 9/8, 107.18-109.3 (array of services); Tr. 9/8, 45.19-46.23; 178.15180.10 (services fostering community integration); Tr. 9/8, 110.10-111.5 (community services as a whole).
CONCLOSIONS OF LAW I. Summary of the Law
(A). Constitutional Claims
In Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 u.s. 307 (1982), the United
States Supreme Court addressed the question of whether a person who is involuntarily committed to a state institution for the mentally retarded has substantive rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to (1) safe conditions of confinement; (2) freedom from bodily restraints; and (3) training or habilitation. See Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 309. Turning first to the issue of safe conditions of confinement, the Court in
23

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1319 Filed 06/28/2001 Page 24 of 44
i
Youngberg found that an inst~tutionalized patient has an obvious
right to adequate food, shelter, clothing, and medical care. See
id. at 315. Recognizing that a person's right to personal
security is a "historic liberty interest", the Court found that
an institutionalized person also has a substantive due process
right to safe conditions of confinement. See id. Similar to a
patient's right to safe conditions of confinement, the Court in
Youngberg also found that freedom from bodily restraint is
recognized as a core liberty! protected by the Due Process Clause.
I I
In light of the fact that thf right to be free from bodily
I
restraints survives criminal! conviction and incarceration, the
I I
court found that it must als~ survive involuntary commitment.
i
With the aforementioned I rights established, the Court in
I
Youngberg went on to addressithe question of whether an
I
involuntarily committed patient has a constitutional right to minimally adequate training or habilitation4 • In addressing this
question, the Court began with the general principle that a state
is under no constitutional dyty to provide substantive services
i
to those within its border. ISee id. at 317. However, when a
person is institutionalized nd wholly dependant on the state,
the Court recognized that a uty to provide certain services and
care does exist. See id. In light of its recognition of a
4The Supreme Court defined this term as "training and development of needed skills. Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 317.
24

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1319 Filed 06/28/2001 Page 25 of 44

constitutionally protected right to be safe and to be free from

bodily restraint, the Court ih Youngberg held that a state is

i
required to provide involunta~ily committed patients minimally
I
adequate or reasonable trainipg to ensure safety and to ensure

I
freedom from undue restraint.1 See id. at 319. With these

obligations stated, however, ~he Court went on to note that the

whethe~ question is not simply

a liberty interest has been

infringed, but whether the extent or nature of the restraint or

lack of safety is such as to ~iolate due process. Thus, in
!
determining whether or not a ~onstitutional violation has taken

place, a court must determin~ whether a state exercised

professional judgment in a deicision related to constitutionally

protected rights. See id. a~ 322. In evaluating professional
judgment, a court must show ~eference to the judgment of
i
qualified professionals, and idecisions made by such professionals
I
are presumptively valid. ~ at 323. "It is not appropriate

for the courts to specify wh~ch of several professionally
I
acceptable choices should ha~e been made." Id. at 321. Rather,
I
"[lJiability may be imposed 9nlY when [aJ decision by [aJ
professional is such a sUbst~ntial departure from accepted I !
professional judgment, pract~ce, or standards as to demonstrate

I
that the person responsible 1ctually did not base the decision on

such a judgment." Id. at 32~.

In

summary,

the

Court , s

Id
I

e

C

1.

S.lo

n

in Youngberg

is

as

follows:

I

25

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1319 Filed 06/28/2001 Page 26 of 44
1. A state has a dutY,to provide involuntarily committed patients adequate food, shelter, clothing, and medical care, See ide at 3i4;
I
2. A state has a duty to provide reasonable safety for all residents and personnel within an institution, See id.;
3. A state may not restrain involuntarily committed residents except when and to the extent that professional judgment deems such restraint necessary to assure safety or to provide needed training, See id.;
4. A state has a duty ito provide such training as an appropriate profes~ional would consider reasonable to ensure a patient's safety and to facilitate a patient's ability to functio~ free from bodily restraints, See id.; and
5. In determining whe~her a state has met its obligations under the constitu~ion, decisions made by appropriate professionals are ~ntitled to a presumption of correctness, and l~ability may be imposed only when a decision by a professional is such a substantial departure from acc~pted professional judgment, practice, or stand4rds as to demonstrate that the person responsible 'actually did not base the decision on such a judgmentJ See id ..
, , ,
Prior to the Supreme CoJrt's decision in Youngberg, the
I
former Fifth Circuit held th~t civilly committed mental patients
i I
have a constitutional right ~o individual treatment that will
I
afford them a reasonable oPP9rtunity to be cured or to improve
their mental condition. See iDonaldson v. O'Conner, 493 F.2d 507,
I
520 (5 th Cir. 1974) (vacated oJ other grounds); Wyatt v. Aderholt,
I
503 F.2d 1305, 1312 (5th Cir. 11974). In reaching this holding,
!
the Fifth Circuit reasoned t~at "the only permissible
I
justifications for civil cO~itment and for the massive
I
abridgments of constitutionally protected liberties it entails
26

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1319 Filed 06/28/2001 Page 27 of 44

[are] the danger posed by th~ individual committed to himself or

to others, or the individual's need for treatment and care.
Aderholt, 503 F.2d at 1312. ~Given this fact, the prior Fifth
I
Circuit found that "if the p~rpose of the commitment is to secure
I
treatment, the state violate~ due process if it does not, in
fact, provide treatment." ~ Subsequent to the Supreme Court's
I
opinion in Youngberg, the EI~venth Circuit recognized that the

Fifth Circuit's holdings in ~derholt and Donaldson were not
I
addressed in Youngberg. See;D.W. v. Rogers, 113 F.3d 1214, 1218

(11 th Cir. 1997). Therefore,: it appears that the Fifth Circuit's

holdings in Aderholt and Dontldson are still binding precedent

within the Eleventh Circuit.' See Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661
F.2d 1206, 1209 (11 th Cir. 19~1).

In addition to the circ~it-Ievel opinions in Aderholt and

Donaldson, at least one disttict court within this circuit has
found that the right to tralm• I l•ng and habilitation set forth in
i
Youngberg includes the right,to such training as is necessary to
i
prevent institutionalized paItients' basic self-care skills from

deteriorating. See Armstead v. Pingree, 629 F. Supp. 273, 276

(M.D. Fla. 1986).

(B). ADA Claims

Title II of the ADA appties to public services that are

furnished by governmental entities.

i

12132 states that:

I

!

Specifically, 42 u.s.c. §

27

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1319 Filed 06/28/2001 Page 28 of 44

Subject to the provisio~s of this subchapter, no qualified

individual with a disability shall, by reason of such

disability, be excluded'from participation in or be denied

the benefits of the seryices, programs, or activities of a

public entity, or be su~jected to discrimination by any such

entity.s

I

In Olmstead v. Zimring, 1119 S.Ct. 2176 (1999), the Supreme

Court was asked to decide whtther Title II of the ADA requires
I
placement of persons with me*tal disabilities in community

settings rather than in institutions. See Olmstead, 119 S.Ct. at

2181. Answering this questi~n with a "qualified yes" , the Court

in Olmstead held that:
i
Such an action is in or~er when the State's treatment professionals have detetmined that community placement is appropriate, the tra~sfer from institutional care to a less restrictive setting is not opposed by the affected individual, and the pla~ement can be reasonably accommodated, taking into account the resources available to the State and the ne~ds of others with disabilities.
I
Id. However, the Court in flmstead expounded on its holding by
I
stating that a state's respo*sibility to provide community-based
treatment to qualified perso~s with disabilities is not
i
boundless. See id. at 2188. I The Court noted that a state can

SThe Court sua sponte takes note of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.s. 356 (2001), as that opinion relates to claims against state actors for money damages under the ADA. In this case, the defendants have raised an Eleventh Amendment immunity defense to the ADA claims against it. This court'l however, need not address what effect, if any, the Garrett opinion wou~d have on the ADA claims in this case in light of the fact that the cotrt finds that the defendants have not violated the ADA. Therefore, a y Eleventh Amendment defense offered by the defendants is rendered moot.
28

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1319 Filed 06/28/2001 Page 29 of 44
resist modifications that entiail a ~fundamental alteration" of
the state's services and prodrams. See id. In other words, ~the
fundamental-alteration compodent . . would allow the State to
I
show that, in the allocation 'of available resources, immediate
relief for the plaintiffs woqld be inequitable, given the
responsibility the State has undertaken for the care and
treatment of a large and diverse population of persons with
mental disabilities." Id. a~ 2189. By way of example, a
,
plurality of the Court in Olmstead went on to state that:
I
If, for example, the St~te were to demonstrate that it had a comprehensive, effectively working plan for placing qualified persons with ~ental disabilities in less restrictive settings, arid a waiting list that moved at a reasonable pace not cdntrolled by the State's endeavors to keep its i~stitutions fully populated, the reasonable-modification~ standard would be met.
II. The Law Applied to the ~acts of This Case
(A). Constitutional Cla~ms
(i). Reasonable Ca~e and Safety In this case, the plainbI iffs have three "constitutional
claims" that can be divided ~nto various sub-parts. The first
constitutional claim raised ~y the plaintiffs pertains to the , ,
provision of reasonable care and safety to the patients at GPW. Specifically, the plaintiffs ;I allege that the patients at GPW are
inadequately supervised; ina~equatelY treated for self-injurious
behavior; inadequately prote~ted from environmental hazards; and
29

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1319 Filed 06/28/2001 Page 30 of 44
that adverse incidents are inadequately investigated and/or responded to.
Inadequate Supervision The plaintiffs contend tihat GPW fails to provide a sufficient number of adequat1ly trained staff to provide patients
,
with adequate supervision anq safety in a therapeutic environment. However, the evidence at trial shows that GPW is adequately staffed· with trairted employees who provide adequate supervision and safety as marldated by the Supreme Court's holding in Youngberg that a the Stat~ must provide reasonable safety for all residents. See,.§.......g, Tr, 8/30, 115.17-24; Tr. 8/30, 115.25116.5; Tr. 8/30, 37, 39, and 59; Tr. 8/30, 45-46. While it is true that in any psychiatric hospital, a larger number of trained staff would always be ideal, the staffing at GPW provides reasonable care and safety arid complies with accepted professional judgment, pract~ce, or standards. See Youngberg, 457 u.S. at 323.
Treatment for Self-Iniufious or Assaultive Behavior The next sub-claim unde~ the major claim of reasonable care and safety is that GPW provi~es inadequate treatment for self-
I
injurious or assaultive behaYior. The crux of this sub-claim is that GPW does not modify tre4tment plans and/or perform suicide
I
assessments to address behavfors and problems that result in harm
i
to patients. However, the evidence at trial showed that GPW
30

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1319 Filed 06/28/2001 Page 31 of 44
exercises professional judgm¢nt in its treatment of selfinjurious or assaultive behaVior, and that the treatment complies with accepted professional j~dgment, practice, or standards. See, ~, Tr. 8/23, 187.10-213.12; Exhibit 0-122 at 25-26; Exhibit 0-65; Tr. 8/30, 133.~7-22; Case of Tonya W., Exhibit 0122 at 48-50; Tr. 8/24, 10.3+13.11; Case of Paul B., Exhibit 0122 at 25-26; Tr. 8/23, 187.10-213.12; Tr. 8/30, 123.9-124.9, Case of Rodney S., OOJ Exhibit 182A at 6-7. While some patients at GPW have committed suicid¢ or harmed themselves or others, the evidence at trial shows that GPW has provided adequate treatment for self-injurious or assaultive behavior. See,~, Exhibit 024; Tr. 8/31, 148.2-151.15, 154.24-155.10. Case of Leon G., Tr. 8/30, 204.6-205.19; Tr. 8/24j 87.10-90.14; 91.1-5.
Protection from Environ~ental Hazards The third claim under reasonable care and safety is that GPW fails to protect its patient$ from environmental hazards such as illegal drugs and "hanging h.zards." At trial, however, the evidence showed that GPW is exercising professional judgment in protecting its patients from environmental hazards, and GPW's handling of environmental haiards complies with accepted
!
professional judgment, practice, or standards. See, ~, Tr. 8/31, 160.12-164.3; Tr. 8/28~ 156.12-159.8; Exhibit 0-120 at 6264; Tr. 9/5, 165.19-22; 167.e-169.6; Tr. 9/5, 170.17-171.10; Tr. 9/6, 117.7-119.18; Tr. 8/28, 163.8-164.18; Tr. 8/30, 57; Tr. 8/8,
31

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1319 Filed 06/28/2001 Page 32 of 44
155.14-157.14; Tr. 9/5, 181.1S-183.24. As noted by the Supreme Court in Youngberg, an institution cannot protect its residents from all danger if it is to p~rmit them to have any freedom. See Youngberg, 457 U.S. 320. ThuS, while the evidence shows that environmental conditions at G?W could be improved, GPW utilizes professional judgment and adeguately protects its patients from environmental hazards. Tr. 8(23, 39.4-40.15; Tr. 8/23, 36.636.9, 37.23-24; Tr. 8/28, 164.19-24.
Investigation and Respon~e to Adverse Incidents As a final sub-claim under reasonable care and safety, the plaintiffs claim that GPW fails to investigate and respond to adverse incidents at the hosp~tal. Despite these allegations, however, the evidence at trial showed that GPW has an effective plan in place for the investigation of adverse events. See, ~, Tr. 9/5, 244.10-246.4; Tr. 9/6, 93.14-24; Tr. 8/28, 168.318; Tr. 9/6, 92.24-93.24; Tr. 9/6, 66.2-15; 99.8-100.14; Tr. 9/5, 173.25-174.21; 216.23-217.17; Tr. 9/6, 116.4-22; Tr. 9/6, 105.16108.11; Tr. 9/6, 35-64; Tr. 9/6, 114.20-115.2, 111.7-19; Tr. 9/6, 91 . 11 - 92 . 2 ; 94. 8- 95 . 3 ; Tr. 916 , 3 9 . 1-40 . 2 0; 9 / 6 , 38 . 12 - 2 5; Tr . 9/6, 42.21-44.23; Tr. 9/6, 50.22-54.7; Tr. 9/6, 57.12-59.2; Exhibit 0-65. Additionally, the evidence at trial showed that GPW investigates and responds to reports of adverse incidents and implements procedures to corr~ct and/or prevent future problems.
I
See id. In other words, GPW':s investigations and responses to
32

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1319 Filed 06/28/2001 Page 33 of 44
adverse incidents at the hospital are based on professional judgment and comply with accepted professional practice and standards. Tr. 8/23, 39.4-40,.15; Tr. 8/23, 36.6-36.9, 37.23-24; Tr. 9/6, 35-64.
(ii). Failure to Provide! Adequate Treatment The next constitutional claim asserted by the plaintiffs is that the patients at GPW do not receive adequate treatment. The sub-claims under this main claim are inadequate assessment of patients; inadequate treatment planning; inadequate provision of active treatment; and inadequate discharge planning. Patient Assessment Turning first to the sub-claim of inadequate assessment of patients, the plaintiffs contend that patient assessments at GPW fail to determine realistic rehabilitative goals and the appropriate treatment interv~ntions needed to attain those goals. Contrary to these allegations, however, the evidence at trial shows that GPW's clinical assessments of patients are based on professional judgment and comply with accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards. See Youngberg, 457 U.S. 323; Tr. 8/31, 87.1-89.25; Tr. 8/31, 89.13-91.11; Tr. 8/31, 99.17100.7; 207.6-15; Tr. 8/25, 88.19-90.3; Tr. 8/31, 96.10-98.20; Exhibit D-26; Tr. 8/31, 139.~3-24.
33

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1319 Filed 06/28/2001 Page 34 of 44

Treatment Planning

Moving to the plaintiffs' sub-claim for inadequate treatment

planning, the plaintiffs state that patients at GPW are provided

ad hoc and inconsistent treatment activities that often bear only

an incidental relationship to their therapeutic needs and goals.

However, the evidence at triql shows that treatment planning at

GPW is based on professional judgment that comports with accepted

professional judgment, practice, or standards. See,~, Tr.

8/23, 107.12-18; Tr. 8/23, 187.10-213.12; Tr. 8/23, 138.24-144.6;

Tr. 8/24, 10.3-13.11; Tr. 8/24, 140.2-7; 140.11-15; Exhibit 0-

135; Tr. 8/24, 147.1-18; 149.20-25; 150.3-17; Exhibit 0-123 at 8-

16; Tr. 8/24, 93.16-22. While it is true that the expert

opinions at trial varied as bo what treatment is best for any

given patient, it is not appropriate for the Court to choose

which of several professionally acceptable treatment planning

choices should have been made. Treatment planning at GPW is

based on professional judgment that comports with accepted

professional judgment, pract~ce, or standards. ,
457 U.S. at 321; Tr. 8/24, 91.2-93.7.

See Youngberg,

Provision of Treatment 4nd Treatment Programing

Much like their sub-claim for treatment planning, the

plaintiffs also claim that t~e provision of active treatment at

GPW is inadequate. Once again, however, the evidence at trial
shows that treatment at GPW is based on professional judgment

34

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1319 Filed 06/28/2001 Page 35 of 44
that comports with accepted p~ofessional judgment, practice, or standards. See, ~, Tr. 8/24, 78.5-16; Exhibit 0-123 at 60; Tr. 8/28, 72.25-79.22; Tr. 8/31, 103.4-104.8; Tr. 8/25, 76.2-19; Tr. 8/25, 79.5-80.21; Tr. 8/29, 137.24-140.24; Tr. 8/25, 78.2-22; Tr. 8/25, 83.19-85.5; Tr. 8/29, 236.1-237.16; Exhibit 0-47; Tr. 8/29, 242.14-243.12; 245.6-20; Exhibit 0-114 at 11-12; Tr. 8/25, 124.1-125.14; 126.7-128.2; Exhibit 0-114 at 14-20; Tr. 8/31, 218.10-17. Furthermore, the evidence at trial shows that treatment at GPW reasonably ensures patient safety and facilitates the patients' ability to function free from bodily restraints; prevents patients' basic self-care skills from deteriorating; and affords patients a reasonable opportunity to be cured or to improve their mental condition. See id.; Youngberg, 457 u.S. at 324; Qonaldson, 493 F.2d at 520; Aderholt, 503 F.2d at 1312; Armstead, 629 F. Supp. at 276.
Discharge Planning As a final sub-claim under failure to provide adequate treatment, the plaintiffs argue that discharge planning at GPW is
,
inadequate. At trial, howev~r, the evidence showed that GPW has an ongoing system for discha~ge planning that is based on professional judgment that cqmports with accepted professional practice and standards. OOJ Exhibit 148 at 2; Tr. 9/8, 96.1798.8; Tr. 9/8,83.17-85.23; 'tr. 9/8, 85.25-87.18; Tr. 9/8, 93.2496.15; Tr. 9/8, 69.2-70.25; ¢xhibit 0-117 at 11-13; Tr. 9/8,
35

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1319 Filed 06/28/2001 Page 36 of 44

81.25-82.9; Tr. 9/8, 81.25-82.21; 178.9-18. While the testimony

at trial showed that every aspect of every patient's discharge

plan was not always formally ~ecorded in a set series of

documents, the evidence also showed that GPW's discharge planning

system is based on professional judgment that complies with

accepted professional practice and standards. Tr. 9/8, 81.25-

82.21; 178.9-18.

(iii) .

Provision of Community Health Services

The final constitutional claim raised by the plaintiffs is

that the defendants are violating the Constitution in the

provision of community mental health services to present and

former GPW patients. More specifically, the plaintiffs allege

that the defendants are not providing adequate community services

to meet the assessed functional and clinical needs of current and

former GPW patients, nor are they providing such services in the

most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of those

patients. At trial, however, the evidence did not support the

plaintiffs' aforementioned constitutional claims. In fact, the

evidence at trial showed that the defendants' provision of

community services is based qn professional judgment that

comports with accepted professional practice and standards. See,

~, Tr. 9/8, 45.2-18; Tr. 9/7, 21.15-23.7; Tr. 9/8, 45.19-

46.23; 178.15-180.10; Tr. 9/8, 57.16-58.21; 106.2-6; Exhibit 0-

117 at 9; Tr. 8/15, 58.3-5; 59.1-6; Tr. 9/8, 75.19-76.5; OOJ

36

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1319 Filed 06/28/2001 Page 37 of 44
Exhibit 212 at Appendix 0; DOJ Exhibit 333; Tr. 9/7, 72.11-75.14. Furthermore, no evidence at trial suggested that the provision of community services to current and former GPW patients was not taking place in the most integrated setting appropriate for the needs of those patients. While the testimony of some witnesses was that some GPW patients do not receive community services in the best of settings, this fact alone does not constitute a constitutional violation. The law requires that community services must comply with accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards, and does not require that community services be provided in the best conceivable setting possible.
Youngberg, 457 u.s. at 323. Similarly, the testimony at trial
showed that some of GPW's community patients, at times, end up in less than desirable circumstances after their discharge. While this anecdotal evidence is sad and unfortunate, it does not prove a constitutional violation due to the fact that it does not show that professional judgment, practice, or standards are not being complied with. See id. In fact, substantial evidence at trial showed that patients in the community often end up in unfortunate situations due to factors that are beyond the defendants' control. See,~, Tr. 8/15, 15.17-17.17 (patient recidivism); Tr. 9/8, 90.15-96.15 (conclusion of involuntary commitment status/loss of patient cooperation); Tr. 9/8, 90.15-96.15 (criminal conduct by patients) .
37

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1319 Filed 06/28/2001 Page 38 of 44 /.-..
(B). Claims Under the AD~ In addition to their con$titutional claims, the plaintiffs also contend that the defendants are violating the ADA by failing to make reasonable modifications necessary to provide mental health services in the most iptegrated setting appropriate for patient needs. According-to the plaintiffs, the ADA demands that mental health services be provided in community settings to the extent that such a setting is consistent with patient needs. See United States' and Plaintiffs' Post-Trial Memorandum of Law at 14. As noted previously, the crux of the plaintiffs' ADA claim is that the defendants are failing to reasonably modify their programs in light of the fact that they are failing to provide mental health services in the most integrated setting appropriate to patient needs. While the lion's share of the plaintiffs' arguments focuses on the modifications that the defendants could make to comply with the ADA, the underlying premise of the plaintiffs' ADA claim is faulty. Specifically, the evidence at trial did not show that the defendants were failing to administer GPW's mental health program in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of current and former GPW patients. See, ~, Tr. 9/8 , 45. 2 -18 ;T r. 9/7, 21. 15 - 23 . 7; Tr. 9/8 , 45. 1 946.23; 178.15-180.10; Tr. 9/8, 57.16-58.21; 106.2-6; Exhibit D11 7 at 9; Tr. 8 / 15 , 58. 3 - 5 ; 59. 1- 6 ; Tr. 9/8, 7 5 . 19 - 7 6 . 5 ; DO J Exhibit 212 at Appendix D; DQJ Exhibit 333; Tr. 9/7, 72.11-75.14.
38

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1319 Filed 06/28/2001 Page 39 of 44
In other words, while the plaintiffs' ADA claims focus on what modifications the defendants could make to improve their mental health program, their evidence at trial failed to prove that the defendants are in fact violating the ADA.
As noted above, the United States Supreme Court in the Olmstead decision held that:
[Title II of the ADA requires placement of persons with mental disabilities in community settings rather than in institutions] when the State's treatment professionals have determined that community placement is appropriate, the transfer from institutional care to a less restrictive setting is not opposed by the affected individual, and the placement can be reasonably accommodated, taking into account the resources available to the State and the needs of others with disabilities Olmstead, 119 S.Ct. at 2181. With this holding in mind, the evidence at trial did not prove that the defendants are failing to place individuals in an appropriate community treatment setting when relevant treatment professionals have determined that community placement is appropriate. See supra, Part II (A) (iii). Given this fact, the plaintiffs have failed to show any violation of the ADA as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Olmstead. Additionally, the plaintiffs' contend that the defendants' mental health program, as administered, results in unnecessary isolation of patients into segregated settings. Specifically, the plaintiffs claim that the alleged segregation of patients stems from the defendants' (1) failure to provide an appropriate
39

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1319 Filed 06/28/2001 Page 40 of 44
array and intensity of community services; (2) failure to plan for patient discharges; (3) failure to assess the needs of the patient population; and (4) failure to properly manage their resources and system accountability. Much like the similar claims made by the plaintiffs in their constitutional counts, however, the evidence at trial does not substantiate any of the alleged segregation claims. See supra, Part II(A); See also, Tr. 8/15, 58.3-5; 59.1-6; Tr. 9/8, 75.19-76.5; Tr. 8/10, 83.5-84.5; Tr. 8/15, 84. 3- 85 . 6; Tr. 8/15, 52. 24 - 53 . 7; Tr. 9/5, 148. 17149.14; Tr. 8/17, 183.19-22; Tr. 8/15, 55.13-56.8; OOJ Exhibit 212, Appendix 0; OOJ Exhibit 333. As a general matter, the evidence at trial did not show that the defendants' mental health program, as administered, results in unnecessary isolation of patients into segregated settings. See Tr. 9/6, 199.13-15; 202.17-201.25; Exhibit 0-146A at §394.453; Tr. 9/7, 21.15-23.7; Tr. 9/7, 33.18-23; OOJ Exhibit 71; Exhibit 0-100 at i-iii. Notwithstanding the four reasons offered by the plaintiffs as to why patients are unnecessarily isolated into segregated settings, the evidence at trial failed to show that patients are in fact isolated into segregated settings. Additionally, an examination of each of the four alleged problems offered by the plaintiffs, in light of the evidence presented at trial, shows that the defendants are not unnecessarily subjecting patients to isolated segregation.
40

-. Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1319 Filed 06/28/2001 Page 41 of 44

·r--

...

As to the array and intensity of community settings provided by the defendants, the plaintiffs have offered ample evidence at trial to show that different community services could be offered by the defendants. The plaintiffs have also presented evidence that the community services offered by the defendants could be better, broader and more intense. Despite these facts, however, the plaintiffs have failed to show that the community services provided by the defendants are inadequate to the point that they result in unnecessary isolated segregation in violation of the ADA. See,~, Tr. 9/8, 45.2-18; Tr. 9/7, 21.15-23.7; Tr. 9/8, 45.19-46.23; 178.15-180.10; Tr. 9/8, 57.16-58.21; 106.2-6; Exhibit 0-117 at 9; Tr. 8/15, 58.3-5; 59.1-6; Tr. 9/8, 75.1976.5; DOJ Exhibit 212 at Appendix 0; DOJ Exhibit 333; Tr. 9/7, 72.11-75.14.
As to discharge planning and patient needs assessments, the Court's previous discussion of these topics under the plaintiffs' constitutional claims is also relevant here. 6 The evidence at trial showed that discharge planning and patient needs assessment at GPW are not done in violation of the ADA See, DOJ Exhibit 148 at 2.; Tr. 9/8, 96.17-98.8; Tr. 9/8,83.17-85.23; Tr. 9/8, 85.25-87.18; Tr. 9/8, 93.24-96.15; Tr. 9/8, 69.2-70.25; Exhibit

6In fact, the plaintiffs themselves note the similarity between the arguments made in their constitutional claims and those made in their ADA segregation claims. See United States' and Plaintiffs' Post-Trial Memorandum of Law at 19.
41

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1319 Filed 06/28/2001 Page 42 of 44
0-117 at 11-13; Tr. 9/8, 81.25-82.9; Tr. 9/7, 39.6-16.DOJ Exhibit 80 at 5.
Finally, the defendants' resource management and system accountability as it relates to compliance with the ADA is irrelevant since no violation of the ADA has been proven. Having made the preceding finding that the defendants are not violating the ADA, it is unnecessary for the Court to examine whether the proposed modifications offered by the plaintiffs are reasonable and/or are fundamental alterations to the defendants' mental health program. In other words, there is no need for the Court to consider what program modifications would bring the defendants into compliance with the ADA given the fact that the Court has found that the defendants are not violating the ADA.
In this trial, the burden of proof was on the plaintiffs to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendants are violating the statutory and constitutional rights of current and former GPW patients. They have not done so. While the plaintiffs have offered evidence that mistakes have been made and that conditions and programs could be different or in some cases better, they have failed to prove that the patients at GPW are inadequately supervised; inadequately treated for self-injurious behavior; inadequately protected from environmental hazards; or that adverse incidents are inadequately investigated and/or responded to. Additionally, the plaintiffs have failed to prove
42

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1319 Filed 06/28/2001 Page 43 of 44
inadequate assessment of patients; inadequate treatment planning; inadequate provision of active treatment; or inadequate discharge planning. As to community services, the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the defendants are not providing adequate community services to meet the assessed functional and clinical needs of current and former GPW patients, nor have they proven that the defendants are not providing such services in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of patients.
Likewise, the plaintiffs have failed to prove a violation of the ADA. Again, while the plaintiffs offered evidence that community services and facilities could be different and in some instances better, they have failed to prove that the defendants' mental health program, as administered, results in unnecessary isolation of patients into segregated settings.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Clerk shall enter final judgment in this matter in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenor in this matter on all claims raised and tried in Case No. 8:87-Civ369-T-24TBM during the weeks of August 7, 2000 through September 8, 2000.
43

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1319 Filed 06./-28/2001 Page 44 of 44

DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, this ~ -1 r:\day of June,

2001.

J ~-- C? . 3__c,Q.
sus N C. BUCKLEW
United States District Judge

Copies to:

Counsel of Record

44

 
 Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1445 Filed 06/03/2002 Page 1 of 16

FILED'

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

biY

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

02

JU'!
It

-

3

AM

9: 07

MILLER FRANK JOHNSON, et aI. Plaintiffs,
v. MARTIN VAN HOLDEN, et aI.,
Defendants. /
------------------------~

ORDER

Case No.: 8:87-CV-369-T-24TBM

This cause comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Terminate Consent Decree and Exit Criteria Stipulation (Doc. No. 1327), Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition (Doc. No. 1364), Defendants' Supplemental Motion to Terminate Consent Decree and Exit Criteria Stipulation (Doc. No. 1414), and Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition (Doc. No. 1423). A hearing was held on these motions on May 22, 2002.
I. History of the Case This case was originally filed on March 11, 1987 by a class of plaintiffs on behalf of mentally ill persons who are or have been patients at G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital ("GPW"), a state psychiatric hospital in Arcadia, Florida. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December 14, 1987 and a third amended complaint on December 14, 1988 (Doc. No. 30). The Third Amended Complaint contained five counts. In Count I, Plaintiffs alleged that the denial of less restrictive treatment and the conditions of their confinement violated their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Count II stated a claim for denial of procedural due process

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1445 Filed 06/03/2002 Page 2 of 16
resulting from Defendants' allegedly arbitrary revocations of Plaintiffs' grounds privileges, which allowed Plaintiffs to move freely about the facility. Count III asserted a claim under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments for denial of their liberty and association rights resulting from the lack of access to telephones and the hospital's policies of prohibiting visitors under twelve and prohibiting "consensual kissing and hugging between male and female patients and visitors." (Doc. No. 30). In Count N Plaintiffs asserted a claim under the First, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments for denial of access to courts. Finally, in Count V Plaintiffs asserted a claim for violation of their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment stemming from an alleged lack of appropriate programs, services, and trained staff.
In 1989, the case was partially settled by a consent decree (Doc. No. 68). The Court retained jurisdiction over the case and appointed monitors to monitor compliance with the consent decree. In 1993, after further negotiation, the parties entered a stipUlation regarding exit criteria for the consent decree and a stipulation regarding legal access and Plaintiffs moved the Court to approve the stipulations regarding legal access and exit criteria (Doc. No. 403). In 1994, Defendants filed their notices of withdrawal from both stipulations (Doc. Nos. 430, 434, 491). However, Defendants later filed a motion to withdraw their notices of withdrawal from the stipulation regarding legal access and stipUlation regarding exit criteria. (Doc. No. 443). The Court granted Defendants' motion to withdraw their notices ofwithdraw in an order dated July 12, 1994.(Doc. No. 457. Defendants also filed a motion to dismiss Count N ofthe Third Amended Complaint, the legal access claim, and to terminate the stipulation on legal access in December, 1994 (Doc. No. 503). In an order dated March 23, 1998 (Doc. No. 705), this Court adopted Magistrate Judge Thomas McCoun's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 681),
2

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1445 Filed 06/03/2002 Page 3 of 16
granted Plaintiffs' motion to approve stipulations regarding exit criteria and legal access (Doc. No. 403), denied Defendants' remaining motion to withdraw from the exit criteria stipulation (Doc. No. 491), denied Defendants' motion to dismiss Count N of the Third Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 503), and granted the United States' Motion to Intervene (Doc. No. 637).
On April 2, 1998, the United States intervened in this action pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act. In their complaint in intervention, the United States alleged that conditions at GPW violated the constitutional rights of current and fonner patients. The United States also alleged that Defendants violated the Americans With Disabilities Act by failing to provide services and programs to current and fonner GPW patients in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. The United States sought prospective injunctive relief on behalf of these current and fonner GPW patients. After a non-jury trial, the Court directed the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervener on all claims tried before it. The Court found that they failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendants were violating the statutory and constitutional rights of current and fonner GPW patients. Specifically, the Court found that Plaintiffs and Plaintiff -Intervener failed to prove that the patients at GPW were inadequately supervised; inadequately treated for self-injurious behavior; inadequately protected from environmental hazards; or that adverse incidents were inadequately investigated and/or responded to. Additionally, the Court found that Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervener failed to prove inadequate assessment of patients; inadequate treatment planning; inadequate provision of active treatment; or inadequate discharge planning. As to community services, the Court found that Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervener failed to prove that Defendants were not providing adequate community services to meet the assessed functional and
3

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1445 Filed 06/03/2002 Page 4 of 16
clinical needs of current and former GPW patients, nor did Plaintiffs prove that Defendants were not providing such services in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of patients. Finally, the Court found that Plaintiffs failed to prove a violation of the ADA. The Court, however, did not specifically address Defendants' obligations under the Consent Decree as measured by the Exit Criteria Stipulation. The Court made it clear that it was not the purpose of the trial to evaluate Defendants' obligations under the Consent Decree but rather to try the constitutional violations and the ADA violations raised by the United States in its complaint.
On February 7,2002, the last patient was transferred out ofGPW and on February 28, 2002 the hospital formally closed.(affidavit of William Briscoe M.D.)
II. Defendants' Motion to Terminate Consent Decree and Exit Criteria and Motion to Dismiss
Defendants seek to terminate the Consent Decree and Exit Criteria and to dismiss the case with prejudice. (Doc. No. 1327 and 1414). In their motion to terminate (Doc. No. 1327), Defendants assert that the Court should terminate the consent decree and exit criteria and dismiss the case for several reasons. First, Defendants argue that it is no longer equitable to continue to enforce the consent decree as the facts of the case have significantly changed since the parties entered into the Consent Decree. Second, Defendants assert that the Court lacks jurisdiction to enforce the Consent Decree in the absence of any ongoing violations of federal law. Lastly, Defendants argue that they are entitled to termination ofthe Consent Decree under United States v. City of Miami, 2 F.3d 1497, 1508 (11 th Cir. 1993) because the basic purpose of the decree has been fully achieved and there is no significant chance of recurring violations once the decree is lifted. In their supplemental motion to terminate (Doc. No. 1414), Defendants reiterate the
4

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1445 Filed 06/03/2002 Page 5 of 16
arguments in their original motion and further state that the hospital closure now renders moot the legal access claim, the community exit criteria. and all but arguably two paragraphs of the consent decree. Defendants further assert that those remaining provisions of the consent decree dealing with the community are short-term commitments that have been completed, or are exhortatory and unenforceable, or are so closely linked to the hospital that they do not remain viable after the hospital closure.
In their responses to Defendants' motions, Plaintiffs assert that Defendants erroneously rely on the Court's June 28,2001 order in the intervener's case to show compliance with the consent decree and exit criteria stipulation as that issue was not before the Court in the non jury trial. Plaintiffs also assert that there is no basis to vacate the consent decree and exit criteria stipulation because Defendants have failed to demonstrate compliance which satisfies the basic purpose of the consent decree. Plaintiffs agree that the hospital closure renders moot most, but not all, of the provisions of the Consent Decree. Specifically, Plaintiffs agree that the hospital closure renders moot that part of the Consent Decree and Exit Criteria pertaining to both Defendants' hospital obligations and to the legal access claim. However, Plaintiffs argue that none of the Community Exit Criteria are rendered moot by the closure. Plaintiffs further assert that this Court has jurisdiction to enforce that part of the Consent Decree and Exit Criteria that remain viable because Defendants have made no showing that the lingering effects of inappropriate hospitalization have been abated.
III. Legal Standard for Termination In the Eleventh Circuit, the standard for terminating consent decrees is set forth in the cases of and United States v. City of Miami, 2 F.3d 1497, 1508 (lIth Cir. 1993) and Allen v.
5

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1445 Filed 06/03/2002 Page 6 of 16
Alabama State Bd. of Ed., 164 F.3d 1347, 1350 (11th Cir. 1999V The Court finds these cases more applicable to the issue of termination than Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992) as that case dealt specifically with modification of a consent decree. In Rufo, the Supreme Court held that when a party seeks relief from a consent decree the court must determine whether the circumstances are such that continued enforcement of the decree is still equitable. 502 U.S. at 383. The party seeking modification ofthe decree shoulders the burden of establishing a significant change in the law or facts that warrants such revision. Id. If the moving party carries its burden, the court must then "consider whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstances." Id.
Defendants argue that the Eleventh Circuit has applied Rufo's equitable considerations in the context of termination. The case Defendants cite, however, did not deal with a termination; that case also concerned a motion to modify a consent decree. See Jacksonville Branch NAACP v. Duval County Sch. Bd., 978 F.2d 1574, 1582 (11th Cir. 1992). As such, the Court will evaluate Defendants' motion to terminate under the standard set forth in City of Miami and Allen.
In City of Miami, the city entered into a consent decree which prohibited it from discriminating against its employees and prospective employees on the basis of race, sex, or national origin. The union consented to the terms of the decree. The city then implemented its own affirmative action program. 2 F.3d at 1501. Fifteen years after the consent decree was entered, the union filed a motion to vacate or modify, contending that the consent decree had
I The Court notes that the Allen opinion was later vacated by stipUlation of the parties. 216 F.3d 1263 (11 th Cir. 2000). However, the opinion remains persuasive authority as it is a clear pronouncement of this Circuit's standard for the termination of consent decrees.
6

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1445 Filed 06/03/2002 Page 7 of 16
served its purpose. The union contended that the decree "in its current fonn is no longer directed at correcting actual discrimination or the effects of actual discrimination. Rather, the City has institutionalized [sic] a quota system that unduly infringes the interest of employees not benefitting from the plan." Id. at 1502. The district court denied the union's motion to vacate or modify the decree, holding that the union "had not presented 'an evidentiary or legal basis' for such action." Id. at 1503. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's order and remanded the case to the district court for review in light of recent Supreme Court decisions articulating "legal principles...applicable to requirements to tenninate or modify consent decrees" in cases concerning public institutions. Id. at 1498.
The Eleventh Circuit emphasized that the Supreme Court had recently "articulated more flexible standards to be applied to consent decrees which were entered ...to amicably [redress] statutory and constitutional wrongs committed against individuals by public institutions." Id. at 1503 (citing Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992». The Court explained the standard under Rufo for detennining whether a consent decree should be modified. However, the Eleventh Circuit stated that in detennining whether a consent decree should be tenninated, the Supreme Court's decision in Board of Ed. of Oklahoma City Pub. Schs. v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237 (1991) was instructive. City of Miarni, 2 F.3d at 1505. In remanding the case back to the district court, the Court of Appeals stated that ''tennination of the consent decree would be appropriate if the district court finds that the decree is clearly no longer necessary either to prevent discrimination in the future or to remedy the effects ofpast discrimination." Id. at 1508.
Later the Eleventh Circuit more clearly and succinctly articulated the standard for
7

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1445 Filed 06/03/2002 Page 8 of 16
termination of consent decrees in Allen v. Alabama State Bd. of Ed., 164 F.3d 1347, 1350 (11 th Cir. 1999). Citing City of Miami and Dowell, the Court stated that a party seeking termination of a consent decree under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) bears the burden of showing that (1) "the basic purposes of the decree have been fully achieved" and (2) "that there is no significant likelihood of recurring violations of federal law once the decree has been lifted." Allen, 164 F.3d at 1350.
IV. Consent Decree and Exit Criteria Stipulation The Court must first identify the basic purposes of the Consent Decree. Looking to both the Third Amended Complaint and the Consent Decree, it is clear that Plaintiffs were primarily concerned with two issues: conditions at the hospital and the inappropriate placement of patients at GPW rather than in less restrictive facilities in their communities. The provisions of the consent decree concern either the hospital or community placement. As an initial matter, the parties agree that those provisions of the Consent Decree and Exit Criteria Stipulation pertaining to the hospital and legal access have been rendered moot by the closing ofthe hospital. The Court likewise finds that the hospital closure renders these provisions moot. Accordingly, Defendants' motion to terminate the Consent Decree and Exit Criteria Stipulation is GRANTED to the extent that those provisions concerning the hospital are hereby terminated. The closure of the hospital leaves for the Court the determination of whether the remaining community placement provisions, specifically Consent Decree paragraphs 2, 37, and 35 as it pertains to the monitoring of compliance with paragraphs 2 and 372, and the
2 Paragraph 2 sets forth that Beginning February 20, 1989, the defendant will assign clients to living
8

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1445 Filed 06/03/2002 Page 9 of 16
Community Compliance Exit Criteria,3 should be terminated as well.
A. Basic Purpose of the Decree as to Community Placement and Achievement
In determining whether the basic purpose of appropriate community placement has been
achieved, the Court should consider Defendants' "progress or lack thereof' toward that goal. City
units according to their functional levels and specialized program needs based on what is therapeutically appropriate for each client. As community facilities become available, based on specific additional, legislative appropriations, this shall include moving residents from (1) more to less structured living; (2) larger to smaller living facilities; (3) group to individual residence; (4) segregated from the community to integrated into community living; (5) dependent to independent living, according to their needs and as more specifically set forth in the Comprehensive Services Plan for the Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Program 1989-1993, pages 71-130, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Paragraph 37 states that
Patients shall be identified as "discharge ready" based upon determination by the treatment team which will include participation ofthe client and his case manager. Subject to availability by specific additional legislative appropriations, community placement will be made consistent with the availability of services in the GPW catchment area and consistent with need as identified in the Comprehensive Services Plan for Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Program, pages 71-130, attached hereto.
3The language in the Exit Criteria Stipulation makes clear that it serves as the method for measuring Defendants' compliance with hospital based obligations, while the Community Compliance Exit Criteria is the sole and exclusive method for determining Defendants' performance and completion ofcommunity obligations. (Stipulation Regarding Exit Criteria at 2, 7). Plaintiffs do not explicitly concede that the only viable remnant of the Exit Criteria Stipulation is the Community Compliance Exit Criteria, attached as Exhibit 1, but they agree with Defendants as to the mootness of those provisions of the Consent Decree concerning the hospital and legal access claim. The language ofthe Consent Decree, coupled with Plaintiffs' arguments concerning the viability of the community obligations, leads to the conclusion that if the only provisions of the Consent Decree remaining are those concerning Defendants' community obligations, then the only provisions ofthe Exit Criteria that survive are those which measure Defendants' performance of these community obligations - the Community Compliance Exit Criteria.
9

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1445 Filed 06/03/2002 Page 10 of 16
of Miami, 2 F.3d at 1508. Also of importance is Defendants' good faith compliance with the decree. Id. Defendants argue that the basic purpose of the decree has been fulfilled as evidenced by the Court's factual findings in its June 28,2001 Order on the non-jury intervention trial. Furthermore, Defendants argue that there has been no "reliable record evidence" that Defendants have failed to comply with the decree.
In its June 28, 2001 Order, the Court did not make specific findings as to Defendants' compliance with the provisions of the Consent Decree. In fact, the Court made it clear that it was not the purpose of the trial to evaluate Defendants' obligations under the Consent Decree. Nevertheless, as Defendants emphasize, the Court did make findings that Defendants were complying with their community obligations. As to Defendants' community obligations, the Court made the following fmdings:
" Upon discharge from GPW, patients are provided several community placement options, (such as family homes, private apartments, assisted living facilities, etc.), according to their needs and abilities." (Doc. No. 1319 at 18)
"The defendants in this matter are placing persons with mental disabilities in community settings rather than in institutions when the relevant treatment professionals have determined that community placement is appropriate" Id. "Further, the community settings in which patients are placed are integrated and less restrictive than a hospital or institutional setting." Id. at 19.
"The defendants are providing an appropriate array and intensity of community services." Id. at 20.
"...all aspects of the defendants' provision of community services comply with accepted professional standards of care." Id. at 23.
10

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1445 Filed 06/03/2002 Page 11 of 16
Based on these factual findings, it appears that at the time of trial Defendants had fulfilled the basic purposes of the consent decree as it applies to the community obligations. Specifically, these findings indicate a good faith compliance with the provisions of the consent decree and progress toward the goal of discharging those patients identified as 'discharge ready' into appropriate community facilities. Nevertheless, patients continued to be discharged from GPW and placed in the community after the conclusion of the trial in September of2000 until the last patient was discharged in February of2002. Although the first prong of the standard for termination appears to have been met, the Court still must consider whether Defendants have shown that they have met the second prong: whether there is a significant likelihood of recurring violations once the decree is lifted.
B. Likelihood of Recurring Violations Under the second prong of the standard for termination, Defendants must demonstrate that there is no significant likelihood of recurring violations once the decree is lifted. Allen, 164 F.3d at 1350. Defendants assert that "the Court's detailed findings demonstrate that there is little likelihood of slippage in care and conditions." (Doc. No. 1327 at 21). Defendants further argue that they "have no federal law obligations to provide any level of care or safety in the community - people are not in the defendants' physical custody there." Id. Defendants cite D.W. v. Rogers, 113 F.3d 1214 (11th Cir. 1997), in support of their argument that they had no obligation to provide the discharged residents with treatment or to ensure that these individuals received care or safety once discharged. D.W., however, did not involve parties who freely entered into a consent decree, binding themselves to obligations to which they voluntarily agreed. While the Court's factual findings in it June 28, 2001 Order do indicate that the basic
11

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1445 Filed 06/03/2002 Page 12 of 16

purposes of the Consent Decree have been achieved, these findings do not indicate that there is

no significant likelihood of recurring violations in light of the fact that a great number of patients

were discharged after the Court made its findings. In order for the Court to find no such

likelihood exists, it is necessary that the Court evaluate Defendants' performance under the

Community Compliance Exit Criteria, which the parties stipulated as the method of measuring

Defendants' compliance with its community obligations to ensure that those individuals

discharged after the Court made its findings in its June 28,2001 Order were similarly placed in

appropriate community settings. Because there is no evidence before the Court that these

individuals were discharged into community facilities in compliance with the Community

Compliance Exit Criteria, the Court cannot find that there is no significant likelihood of recurring

violations of federal law once the decree has been lifted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants' Motion to Terminate

the Consent Decree and Exit Criteria and Supplemental Motion to Terminate the Consent Decree

and Exit Criteria (Doc. Nos. 1327 and 1414) are GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART: to

the extent the motions seek to terminate Consent Decree paragraphs 2,37, and 35 as it pertains to

the monitoring of Defendants' community obligations, and the Community Compliance Exit

Criteria, the motions are DENIED; otherwise, the motions are GRANTED.

~ DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida this

day of June, 2002.

Q~ C-. Elk~
S AN C. BUCKLEW United States District Judge
12

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1445 Filed 06/03/2002 Page 13 of 16 Copies to: Counsel of Record
Magistrate Judge Thomas McCoun
13

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Date Printed: 06/03/2002

DoFcumI eLnt E1445COFiPledY06/03/2002

Page 14 of 16

Notice sent to:

J31y 7,7 ' 36'1

Morris E. Shelkofsky Jr., Esq. Attorney General's Office Corrections Litigation Branch The Capitol, Suite PL-01 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050

Thomas B. York, Esq. Dilworth Paxson LLP 305 N. Front St., Suite 403 Harrisburg, PA 17101-1236

Mark S. Dunn, Esq. Attorney General's Office PL-01, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050

Michael J. Dale, Esq. Nova University Shepard Broad Law Center 3305 College Ave. Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33314

James K. Green, Esq. James K. Green, P.A. One Clearlake Center, Suite 1602 250 Australian Ave. S. West Palm Beach, FL 33401

Steven J. Schwartz, Esq. Center for Public Representation 22 Green Street Northampton, MA 01060

Robin L. Rosenberg, Esq. Holland & Knight LLP 200 Central Ave., Suite 1600 P.O. Box 3542 St. Petersburg, FL 33701

Peter Llewelyn Nimkoff, Esq. Advocacy Center for Persons With Disabilities, Inc. 2671 Executive Center Cir., W.
Suite 100, Webster Bldg. Tallahassee, FL 32301-5024

Office of the MonitorOffice of Monitor Office of the Monitor c/o Dorothy J. Rowe, Monitor 1238 Camellia Dr. Tallahassee, FL 32301

Michael Francis Flynn, Esq.

Case 8:87N-cSvU-00L3aw69-CSCenBterDocument 1445 Filed 06/03/2002 3305 College Ave. Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33314
Anthony N. Deluccia Jr., Esq. Florida Dept. of HRS 2295 Victoria Ave., Suite 103 P.O. Box 60085 Ft. Myers, FL 33906
Chesterfield Smith Jr., Esq. Office of the Attorney General Bldg. 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
Michael L. Seigel, Esq. U.S. Attorney's Office Middle District of Florida 400 N. Tampa St., Suite 3200 Tampa, FL 33602
Deval L. Patrick, Esq. U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division P.O. Box 65968 Washington, DC 20035-5968
Janet Reno, Esq. Attorney General u.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 14198 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044
Arthur E. Peabody Jr., Esq. U.S. Attorney's Office 2100 Jamieson Ave. Alexandria, VA 22314
Joseph R. Zogby, Esq. U.S. Dept. of Justice Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division P.O. Box 66400 Washington, DC 20035-6400
Lisa Wilson Edwards, Esq. Department of Justice P.O. Box 66078 Washington, DC 20035-6078
Ronald L. Harrop, Esq. Gurney & Handley, P.A. 225 E. Robinson St., Suite 450 P.O. Box 1273 Orlando, FL 32802-1273
Martha J. Cook Cook & Bell Mediation Group

Page 15 of 16

Case 8:871-0c0v-0N0.36T9a-SmCpBa StD.ocument 1445 Suite 2100 Tampa, FL 33602

Filed 06/03/2002

Page 16 of 16

 
 Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1551 Filed 03/19/2004 Page 1 of 4

, "
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT'· MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

.- I -' I ' , .'."f.·;-":"12

MILLER FRANK JOHNSON, et aI., Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 8:87-cv-369-T-24TBM

GERALD REGIER, __________D_e_f_e_nd_a_n_t._______~I

ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the court on the Office of the Monitor's Request for Ruling on Two Remaining Exit Criteria Issues (Doc. 1539), Plaintiffs' memorandum (Doc. 1544), and Defendant's brief (Doc. 1545). A hearing on the matter was conducted March 18,2004. 1 As more fully addressed in the pleadings and at the hearing, the parties and the Office of the Monitor request the court to resolve their dispute over the continued efficacy of criterion #1 to the Community Compliance Exit Criteria (hereinafter "Exit Criteria") in effect in this case. Additionally, they ask the court to define the scope of footnote 1 to criterion #6 insofar as it defines the term "areas of need.,,2

IThis court also heard argument on the matter at a hearing on June 10,2003.
2In or about February 1993, the parties, with the approval of the Office of Monitor, entered a Stipulation Regarding Exit Criteria (hereinafter "Stipulation") intended to provide the exclusive method of measuring the State's performance under the consent decree. The Stipulation included agreed upon standards by which to measure the State's compliance with its G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital (hereinafter "GPW")-based obligations and its community-based obligations under the consent decree and for the termination of the decree. In essence, the State here challenges the manner in which the Office of the Monitor has measured its compliance under criterion #1 because it believes that the criterion is obsolete. It also disputes how the Office of the Monitor interprets a footnote to the Exit Criteria.
155/

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1551 Filed 03/19/2004 Page 2 of 4
Criterion #1 provides:
The class member was placed in the community in a less restrictive setting than GPW regardless of whether or not intermittent hospitalization is required.
Is the class member placed in a setting less restrictive than GPW whether or not intermittent hospitalization is required? Are the services for this person among the less restrictive alternatives and practices which, based upon professional judgment, will assist the person living in the community? If not, did the person choose to refuse a reasonable offer of a less restrictive alternative?
Is the person's home safe and clean? See (Doc. 1544, Exh.l at 1). Exit criterion #6 states, "The class member receives the level
and intensity of services, described in the SIP goals, to meet the class members' needs,
whether or not intermittent hospitalization is required...." The footnote to this criterion
states in pertinent part:
In the context of the community compliance criteria, the "areas of need" are defined as case management, independent living skills, vocational/educational, social activities, mental health therapy and medication, physical health and nutrition.
The parties and the Office of the Monitor agree that regardless of the source of these needs (i.e., maintaining the person in the community and remedying lingering effects of inappropriate hospitalization), the exit criteria are based exclusively upon identifying and meeting current needs in the categories referred to above.... Id. at 2, 4.
Regarding criterion #1, while it appears to speak both to the present and to the past,
when the criterion is read in the context of the entire Stipulation it is apparent that it was
Resolution of the dispute appears necessary to guide the State in its testing protocol, which the court has allowed to be substituted in lieu of the compliance reviews formerly performed by the Office of the Monitor.
2

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1551 Filed 03/19/2004 Page 3 of 4
intended to inquire of the current circumstances of the members of the class in measuring the State's compliance with the consent decree. Thus, in negotiating the Exit Criteria under the Stipulation, the parties agreed to seven areas appropriate for measuring the State's compliance with its agreed upon community-based obligations. See Exh. C to the Stipulation. The first of these areas was whether "[t]he class member was placed in the community in a less restrictive setting than GPW regardless of whether or not intermittent hospitalization was required." The actual inquiry required for measuring the State's compliance in this area was set forth in the Exit Criteria found at Exhibit 1 to the exit criteria for the State's hospitalbased obligations under the consent decree. See Exh. A to the Stipulation. Upon a plain reading of the agreed upon inquiries, each looked to the present circumstances of the class member.
From arguments, including the comments of the monitor, it is apparent that the question of whether a class member was or is placed in a setting less restrictive than GPW upon hislher discharge is a question no longer necessary to be asked in measuring the State's compliance given the current circumstances. The actual dispute is over whether the State, in its compliance testing, must include the last two inquiries set forth in this criterion (or their equivalent). I conclude that they must. As noted above, by their very terms these inquiries question the current circumstances of the class member. By the Stipulation, the Exit Criteria are the sole and exclusive method for measuring the State's performance and satisfaction of its community-based obligations under the consent decree. Although I have permitted the State to substitute its testing protocol for the monitor's compliance reviews, the Exit Criteria have not changed and the State's instrument must adequately address each of the inquiries
3

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1551 Filed 03/19/2004 Page 4 of 4
agreed to by the parties in the Stipulation. These inquiries, speaking as they do to the present circumstances of the class members, remain viable and must be measured for compliance whether by the State or the monitor.3
In regard to footnote 1 to criterion #6, the parties dispute whether the definition of "areas of need" set forth therein applies to all of the Exit Criteria or only to criterion #6. By my reading, the footnote has broad application. While it clearly is appended to criterion #6, a plain reading of the footnote indicates that it is intended to apply to the entirety of the Exit Criteria. Thus, to the extent that any of the Exit Criteria require measurement of compliance with the "needs" of the class members, it must measure the compliance in each of the areas set forth by the footnote.4
Done and Ordered in Tampa, Florida, this 19th day of March 2004.
~/4~~ THOMAS B. McCOUN III UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to: The Honorable Susan C. Bucklew Counsel of Record
3Interestingly, it appears from the hearing that the Monitor and the State's own expert agree on this. The Office of the Monitor has always assumed that this criteria looked to the current circumstances of the class member as well as to whether the class member was discharged from GPW to a less restrictive setting, and the State's new testing device continues to inquire of the current circumstances of the class members consistent with the inquiry of the last two interrogatories of this criterion. While the lawyers may disagree, the experts appear not to.
4From arguments, this will only impact the State's testing protocol for criterion #5, which will have to be modified.
4

 
 Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 6 Filed 12/14/1987 Page 1 of 18

IN THE U. S. DISTRICT COURT I FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORID~
I
TAMPA D I V I S I O N '

MILLER FRANK JOHNSON. LLOYD KOGER, GAIL BJERKENES. SANDRA GUINN and DANIEL FENNELL
on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated.
Plaintiffs,
vs.

: I
'I
I
'I
Civil ACti0l1l No. 87-369-Civ-T-10A

RICHARD I~SLEY, in his individual capacity an-a as Administrator of G. PIERCE WOOD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL I(G. P. W.), and GREGORY L. COLER in his
of individual Qapacity and as
Secretary FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ~EALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES,
Defendants.
---------------------------------,

CLASS AC~~ON i

AMENDED COMPLAINT

92:"j

• 'I -:J

..

.r:_
.: I
1- •
-....:!

~ "..,t...'..\ flJ 'v

----r-
,.. eo
;..-.. --< ---.J

£3

I.

INTRODUCTION

1. This is a suit brought pursuant to 42 jU,S,C, 11983 to redress violations of the 1st, 5th, 6th and 14th A~ndments to the

United States Constitution.

2. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive; relief under the

1st and 14th Amendments to prevent the Defendants! from restricting

their association with others or their liberty for reasoJj1s not related to

treatment. Plaintiffs allege that they are unnecessarilyj restricted while

on the grolnds of G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital (<). P. W.) and that they are nied access to telephones for reasons u~elated to their

treatment needs.

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 6 Filed 12/14/1987 Page 2 of 18

J. Plaintiffs also allege that between 50 I d 125 of the
patients at G. P. W• require treatment in alternative ~ less restrictive
i
facilities in their home communities. The mental health IOf these patients J
whom the defendants label as " discharge ready " deteriorates I '
Significantt in the unnecessarily restrictive setting of I hospitals such as
G,p,w,,1 4. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injUnCtiv~ relief under the
5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to prevent the Defend~ts from denying
them access to the courts. Plaintiffs allege that Def~dants' failure to
I
provide them with a law library or attorney repres~ntation effectively I
denies them this access.

II.

VRISDICTION

5. This court has jurisdiction over Plaintif,s' claims pursuant
to 28 U.S C. §I1331, 1343(3), 2201(a), 2202 and 42 v.ls.c. 11983.
r
I
6. The unlawful practices and policies ~eged below were

and are ow being committed by the Defendant within: the Middle District

of Florida.

III •

PAR TIES

I
7. Plaintiffs, MILLER FRANK JOHNSON, "LOYD L. KOGER, I i
GAIL BJBRKENES, SANDRA GUINN and DANIEL FENN/ELL are psychiatric
,
I
patients at G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital in DeSoto County, Florida.
r
i
8. Defendant t RICHARD INSLEY, is the JAdministrator of G.

Pierce W d Memorial Hospital, DeSoto County, Florid~l.

- 2-

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 6 Filed 12/14/1987 Page 3 of 18

'-'

,I

I
,I

Defendant, GREGORY L. COLER is the i ecretary of the

Florida

rtment of Health and Rehabilitative Service~ (HRS). This is

the depa,

I
of state government responsible fe>r providing a

comprehensive statewide program of mental

As a result,

HRS exercises executive and administrative supervisio' over all mental

I
I
the state of Florida, including: G. Pierce Wood

Memorial H spital.

I
I
i

IV.

LASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

This action is brought pursuant to Fed.: • Civ. P. 23 (a)

since Defendants have acted in a manner erally applicable

to the

as a whole.

11. The Plaintiff class consists of all p

and future

patients at G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital.

12. There is a Plaintiff sub-class of all

and future

patients at G. P. W. who have been medically determinec/1 to be "discharge I

ready" fo a period of 15 days or longer but w have not been

II

released.

I i

I

13. This action is properly brought as a CI~rS action because:

a. The class is so numerous that jOinter of all members

is imprac cable.
I
b. Questions of law and fact common to the class I
include, ut are not limited to, whether the defendtW.ts have deprived

them of:

1) their right to movement;

2) their right to Uberty, free : rom unreasonable

restraint;

- 3-
I
Ii

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 6 Filed 12/14/1987 Page 4 of 18

3) their right to the least rest9~tiVe appropriate

available treatment;

,
4) their right to communicate freely tnd privately with

I
persons 0 tside the facility and to use telephones in tqe least restrictive
I

manner;

i
5) their right to associate with othe, patients of their

choice; an

I
6) their right of access to the courts,.

c. The named Plaintiffs' claims are ttpical of those of

the class. Plaintiffs are patients at G. Pierce Wood! Memorial Hospital

who have been denied:

1) their right to movement aD! freedom from

unreasonable restraint;

2) their right to the least

appropriate

available treatment;

,I

I

3) their right to communicate freely ,nd privately with

persons 04tside the facility and to use telephones in t~e least restrictive

manner; restraint;

1
I
I
4) their right to liberty, free tom unreasonable
,I
I
I
5) their right to associate with othe~I patlenta of their

choice;

I I i
6) their right of access to the court~l.
14. The Plaintiffs will fairly and adeqU~'tI elY protect and

represent the interests of the class since all their CIs+s are identical to the claims of the class as a whole and they have ~etained competent
counsel to represent them and others similarly situated~

- 4-

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 6 Filed 12/14/1987 Page 5 of 18

'I
I
'I 'I
I
1$. Defendants have acted or refused to lact on grounds

generally applicable to the class as a whole.

I

V.

FACTS

,

'I
'I

16. Plaintiffs, Miller Frank Johnson J Llord Koger J Gail

Bjerkenes, Sandra Guinn and Daniel Fennel, are patierts at G. Pierce

Wood Memorial Hospital (G. P. W.) J a state-operated psy,hiatriC treatment

facility housing over 800 people like the plaintiffs.

17. Plaintiffs' ability to move freely about q.P.W.'s grounds
I
is governed by whether they possess grounds privileges;.
I
18 • Grounds privileges are initially granted! by a treatment

team of memtal health professionals, but they are rout~ely revoked and

reinstated by ward staff who possess no more th~ a high school

diploma.

19. As a result, Plaintiffs' rights to freedom lof movement and
I'
I
liberty are being restricted, not for any reasons i~elated to their
I
treatment, but to punish them for disobedience, ~rce them into

following hospital rules or other rules arbitrarily cre~.ed by G. P. W. 's

staff and to serve their convenience.

20. The Plaintiffs have been deprived of ~ccess to public
! '
I
telephones because of there are no telephones on the w~ds and because
I
of arbitrary restrictions, not related to their treatmedt, placed on the

use of telephones.
I
21. The Plaintiffs have been deprived of acc~ss to the courts

because there is no law library available to them and rey do not have

access to attorneys.

- 5-

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 6 Filed 12/14/1987 Page 6 of 18

'-'

--./

I

~2' I i I As to the representative Plaintiff, Mille Frank Johnson,

over one year ago his doctors determined that he as ready to be

discharged from G. P •W.
i
I
23. Mr. Johnson has not been discharged, i1 part, because of

a lack of alternative treatment services in the

served by

G.P.W.

24. The representative Plaintiff, GAIL JERKENES, was

committed to G. P. W. in January, 1986.

25. She was determined to be discharge

on August 5,

1986.

I
26. She remained in this status, but

not discharged,

until at least March 5, 1987.

27. Somewhere between March 5 and

20, 1987, she

regressed to the piont where she was no longer disch ge ready.

28. Ms. Bjerkenes is not considered to be : 'scharge ready at

this time.

29. The representative Plaintiff,

FENNELL, was

committed to G.P.W. on November 16, 1973.

30. He has been discharge ready many

over the past 14

years, but he has never been discharged.

31. Currently, Mr. Fennell has been

arge ready since

June 1, 1987.

32. Although he has been recommended r placement in a group home or similar facility, the lack of suc~, facilities in the communites served by G. P •W. has resulted in his not '!being discharged.
, , I ,
,

- 6-

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 6 Filed 12/14/1987 Page 7 of 18
\""...-" i

VII.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT I

,I

'!

33. The Defendants' confinement of Plainijffs for reasons

other than treatment t described in Paragraphs 1-32 t jts deprived them

of their right to associate with other patients of thei~ own choosing in I
violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to 'he United States

Constitution.

COUNT II 34. The Defendants' contlnement of Plain °ffs for reasons other than treatment t described in Paragraphs 1-32 t s deprived them of their liberty without due process of law in violation;, f the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

COUNT III
35. Defendants' restrictions on access to ,ublic telephones.
!
described in Paragraphs 1-32, restricts the Plaintiffs' $bility to associate
I
with others and deprives them of their liberty in viol,ation of the First
and Fourteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution.

COUNT IV
36. Defendants' failure to provide legal ass~~tance. described
,
in Paragr&phs 1-32 t denies Plaintiffs access to the cOUjI!ts in violation of
the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution.

- 7-

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 6 Filed 12/14/1987 Page 8 of 18

VIII.

IRREPARABLE HARM

87. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy, or a~~quate remedy at law to secure redress. Unless restrained and enjoin~cjl by this Court,

Defendants will continue to deny Plaintiffs their tights under the

Constitution of the United States as described in Par~graphs 1-32. By

virtue of the foregoing, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to

suffer immediate and irreparable injury.

i

IX.

RAYER FOR RELIEF

I

I
HEREFORE t Plaintiffs request that this cou~t:

I

I

Certify this action as a class action;

I

I

) Grant a jury trial on all issues on wtCh Plaintiffs are

I

entitled as a matter of right;

II

c) Declare that Defendants' confinement ~d restriction of

patients for reasons other than treatment violates! their rights as

guarantee by the First, Fifth t Sixth and Fourteenth iA.mendments to the

United

Constitution. I I
d) Grant preliminary and permanent, Iinjunctive relief

restraining and enjoining the Defendants, their. officers, agents.
ap employees. attorneys. and successors in office, and other persons in
!
active concert and participation with them. from any 1l¥rther confinement

or restriction of patients for purposes other than treatment;

e) Award Plaintiffs costs and reasonable itorneys' fees and

costs pur uant to 42 U. S. C. 11988; and

- 8-

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 6 Filed 12/14/1987 Page 9 of 18

f) Grant any other relief the Court deems e<lj11-itable. Respectfully submit~d,

iL, DATED: December

1987:..--_--s...,...~,..::.;o~....,.,:.~~~~~~~---

Inc.

( 'rAffEIT.4E~4' /t-- ~
Green, Eisenberg • Cohen 301 Clematis Street, Suite 200 West Palm Beach, lj'lorida 33401 Telephone: 305/659-2009
Attorney for Plain~ffs

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

,I1
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and corr1pt copy of the
foregoing ~MENDED COMPLAINT has been sent by retlar U.S. mail,

postage p1iepaid, to G. PIERCE WOOD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, 5100

Highway 31, Arcadia, Florida 33821; Gregory L. C~ler, Secretary,

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 1317 I ,
Winewood Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700; ~d John Miller,
,
General Counsel, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ~EHABILITATIVE

SERVICES, 1317 Winewood Boulevard, Tallahassee, FloriiQa 32399-0700 on

,I/iA this

,y of December, 1987.

/cjc - 9-
\i

 
 -- Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB

Document 30

Filed 12/14/1988
'--

Page 1 of 13
, I
I . _ .•)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

~
'

'"

/.. ,

~ J'l "

'. l'..J

TAMPA DIVISION

MILLER FRANK JOHNSON, LLOYD KOGER, GAIL BJERKENES, SANDRA GUINN and DANIEL FENNELL on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

D:c I'! I 30 PH '88

l :/ ' .

r
:;~
'.~

vs.

CASE NO.: 87-369-Civ-T-10A

RICHARD INSLEY, in his individual

CLASS ACTION

capacity and as Administrator

of G. PIERCE WOOD MEMORIAL

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF REQUESTED

HOSPITAL (G.P.W.), and

GREGORY L. COLER in his

individual capacity and as

Secretary of FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF

HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES,

__________D__e_fe_n__d_a_n_ts_._____________________1

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT A.
INTRODUCTION

1. By this action, plaintiffs challenge the administration of powerful psychotropic drugs to mental patients by unlicensed hospi tal aides, denial of access to the courts, violations of procedural due process, restrictions on liberty, and denial of adequate care, treatment, training, recreation, staffing and nutrition to mental patients at G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital in Arcadia, Florida.
2. In addition, plaintiffs challenge the placement of the 50 to 125 patients at G.P.W. who require treatment in alternative, less restrictive facilities in their home communities. The mental health of these patients, whom the

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 30 Filed 12/14/1988 Page 2 of 13
defendants label as ndischarge ready," deteriorates significantly in the unnecessari ly restrictive setting of hospi tals such as G.P.W.
B. JURISDICTION 3. This court has jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims pursuant to 28 united States Code, Sections 1331, 1343(3), 2201(a), 2202. 4. The unlawful practices and policies alleged below were and are now being committed by the defendants against plaintiffs within the Middle District of Florida.
C. PARTIES 5. Plaintiffs, MILLER FRANK JOHNSON, LLOYD L. KOGER, GAIL BJERKENES, SANDRA GUINN and DANIEL FENNELL are invol untar i ly committed psychiatric patients at G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital in DeSoto County, Florida. 6. Defendant, RICHARD INSLEY, is the Administrator of G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, DeSoto County, Florida. 7. Defendant, GREGORY L. COLER, is the Secretary of the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). HRS, through defendant COLER, has a duty to provjde a comprehensive statewide program of mental health care and exercises executive and administrative supervision over all mental health facilities in the state of Florida, including G. Wood Memorial Hospital.

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 30 Filed 12/14/1988 Page 3 of 13
8. At all times material hereto, defendants were acting under color of state law and caused the consti tutional deprivations described below.
D. CLASS ALLEGATIONS 9. This action is brought pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a} and (b) (2) since defendants have acted in a manner generally applicable to the class as a whole. {Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification dated March 31, 1988 is incorporated by reference.} 10. The plaintiff class consists of all present and future patients at G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital. 11. The class also includes a sub-class of all present and future patients at G.P.W. who have been medically determined to be "discharge ready" for a period of 15 days or longer but who have not been released. 12. This action is properly brought as a class action because: a. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. b. Questions of law and fact common to the class include, but are not limi ted to, whether the defendants have deprived them of: I} their right to movement; 2} their right to liberty, free from unreasonable restraint; 3 } their right to the least restrictive appropriate treatment;

-- Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 30 Filed 12/14/1988 Page 4 of 13
4 ) their right to communicate freely and pr i vate1y wi th persons outside the faci 1ity and to use te1ephonesi
5) their right to associate with other patients of their choicei
6) their right to access of the courts1 and 7} their right to adequate care, treatment, training, recreation, staffing and nutrition. c. The named plaintiffs' claims are typical of those of the class. Plaintiffs are patients at G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital who have been denied: 1} their right to movement and freedom from unreasonable restraint; 2 } their right to the least restrictive appropriate available treatment; 3) their right to communicate freely and privately with persons outside the facility and to use telephones in the least restrictive manner; 4} their right to liberty, free from unreasonable restraint; 5} their right to associate with other patients of their choice; 6} their right to access to the courts; and 7} their right to adequate care, treatment, training, recreation, staffing and nutrition. 13. The named plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect and represent the interests of the class since their claims are

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 30 Filed 12/14/1988 Page 5 of 13
identical to the claims of the class as a whole and the subclass in particular, and they have retained competent counsel to represent them and others similarly situated.
14. Defendants have acted or refused to act on ground generally applicable to the class as a whole.
E. FACTS 15. Plaintiffs, MILLER FRANK JOHNSON, LLOYD KOGER, GAIL BJERKENES, SANDRA GUINN and DANIEL FENNELL are patients at G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital (G.P.W.), a state-operated psychiatric treatment facility housing over 800 patients like the plaintiffs, most of whom were involuntarily committed. 16. Plaintiffs' ability to move freely about G.P.W.'s grounds is governed by whether they possess grounds privileges. 17. Grounds privileges are granted by a treatment team of mental health professionals but are routinely suspended or revoked in order to coerce patients to follow hospital rules, to discipline patients for not following hospital rules, or to coerce them into accepting treatment which they have the right to refuse. 18. While patients are verbally advised of some hospital rules upon admission, no rules are posted, and no written copies of the rules are provided to patients. Other rules are arbitrarily created and enforced by staff without adequate notice to plaintiffs. 19. Grounds privileges are routinely revoked or suspended without affording patients adequate notice, hearing, written

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 30 Filed 12/14/1988 Page 6 of 13
explanation of evidence in support of revocation or suspension, and assistance at a hearing.
20. The plaintiffs have been deprived of access to public telephones because there are no telephones on the wards and because of arbitrary restrictions, not related to their treatment, placed on the use of other telephones.
21. The hospital does not allow visits by anyone under age twelve.
22. Hospital rules prohibit consensual hugging or kissing, in private or public, among male and female patients or visitors.
23. Most patients, including the named plaintiffs, are indigent.
24. There is no adequate law library available to plaintiffs and they do not have adequate access to attorneys.
25. The food served to plaintiffs is bland and inadequate to satisfy the essential nutritional needs of plaintiffs.
26. The vocational, recreational, and educational facilities at G.P.W. are grossly inadequate to meet patient needs.
27. The treatment plans for many patients vary little if any over time reflecting either a lack of training on the part of the staff or as gross inadequacy of treatment.
28. Patient-on-patient and patient-on-staff violence is frequent and results from grossly inadequate staffing and training of staff.
29. Over one year ago Plaintiff, MILLER FRANK JOHNSON, was determined to be discharge ready from G.P.W.

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 30 Filed 12/14/1988 Page 7 of 13
30. Mr. JOHNSON has not been discharged, in part, because of a lack of alternative treatment services in the communi ties served by G.P.W.
31. Plaintiff, LLOYD KOGER, was committed to G.P.W. in April, 1987.
32. Mr. KOGER is not currently discharge ready. 33. Mr. KOGER has been sued by HRS for care and maintenance but was unable to afford an attorney. 34. Plaintiff, GAIL BJERKENES, was committed to G.P.W. in January, 1986. 35. She was determined to be discharge ready on August 4, 1986. 36. She was not discharged due to the lack of less restrictive treatment facilities. 37. Sometime between March 5 and May 20, 1987, she regressed to the point where she was no longer discharge ready. 38. She is not considered to be discharge ready at this time. 39. Plaintiff, SANDRA GUINN, was involuntarily committed in November, 1987. 40. Ms. GUINN is not discharge ready. 41. On at least one occasion, her grounds privileges were revoked for reasons unrelated to treatment. 42. Plaintiff, DANIEL FENNELL, was committed to G.P.W. on November 16, 1973. 43. Mr. FENNELL has been discharge ready since June 1,1987.

------~

--

- Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB

Document 30

Filed 12/14/1988

Page 8 of 13

44. Although he has been recommended for placement in a group home or similar facility, the lack of such facilities in the communities served by G.P.W. has resulted in his not being discharged.
F. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF Count I - Denial of Less Restrictive Treatment
45. Plaintiffs allege paragraphs 1 through 44. 46. Plaintiffs MILLER FRANK JOHNSON, LLOYD L. KOGER, GAIL BJERKENES, SANDRA GUINN, and DANIEL FENNELL are psychiatric patients confined to G.P.W •• They are or have been considered "discharge ready" by defendants. 47. G.P.W. is not designed to, nor does it provide the appropriate, less restrictive treatment, services and training appropriate for discharge ready patients. 48. Due to lack of appropriate, less restrictive treatment alternatives, plaintiffs' care at G.P.W. is at best custodial and inadequate to maintain or develop the skills necessary to enable plaintiffs to function in a less restrictive setting. 49. By subjecting plaintiffs to confinement for reasons other than treatment, and by subjecting them to conditions which have resulted and will continue to result in a loss of skills, defendants have violated and continue to violate plaintiff's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 30 Filed 12/14/1988 Page 9 of 13
Count II - Denial of Procedural Due Process
50. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 49. 51. Unlike comparable institutions, plaintiffs are confined to locked wards. Plaintiffs' ability to move about freely is dependent on their ability to obtain grounds privileges. Grounds privileges are routinely revoked without opportunity for hearing and without established criteria, resulting in arbitrary revocation or suspension of these privileges. 52. By subjecting plaintiffs to inappropriate conf inement and revoking grounds privileges without due process, defendants have denied plaintiffs their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Count III - Denial of Visitation
53. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 52. 54. Plaintiffs are confined on locked wards where no telephone facilities are available and are thereby depri ved of their liberty and freedom of association. 55. Defendants have a policy prohibiting visitors under the age of twelve years. 56. Defendants have prohibited consensual kissing and hugging between male and female patients and visi tors. These policies, practices and procedures deprive plainti ffs of their right to liberty and the right to associate with others. 57. By these practices defendants have denied plaintiffs' rights under the First, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 30 Filed 12/14/1988 Page 10 of 13
_,I
Count IV - Denial of Access to Courts
58. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 57. 59. Plaintiffs are denied access to an adequate law library. 60. Because of their confinement at G.P.W., plaintiffs have no reasonable access to attorneys to assist them with domestic relations problems, civil rights claims, law suits filed by defendants against patients for care and maintenance, and other legal problems. 61. Because of their confinement at G.P.W., plaintiffs are unable to secure meaningful access to the courts wi thout legal assistance. 62. By failing to provide legal assistance defendants have denied to plaintiffs' rights under the First, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the united States Constitution.
Count V - Denial of Adequate Training, Recreation, Staffing and Nutrition
63. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 62. 64. Due to a lack of appropriate programs, services and trained staff, plaintiffs' care at G.P.W. is inadequate. 65. Due to a lack of trained medical staff, unlicensed aides administer powerful psychotropic drugs to patients. 66. Due to a lack of appropriate programs and trained staff, plaintiffs are not provided meaningful vocational training.

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 30 Filed 12/14/1988 Page 11 of 13
67. Due to a lack of appropriate programs and trained staff, plaintiffs are depri ved of meaningful therapeutic recreation.
68. Due to lack of funds and staffing, plaintiffs are deprived of adequate nutrition.
69. Due to a lack of staffing, defendants are unable to control violent patients, creating an atmosphere detrimental to patient recovery.
70. By subjecting plaintiffs to inappropriate care and treatment, defendants have violated and continue to violate plaintiffs' rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the united States Constitution.
G. IRREPARABLE HARM
71. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law to secure redress. Unless restrained and enjoined by this Court, defendants will continue to deny plaintiffs their rights under the Constitution of the United States as described in Paragraphs 1-64. By virtue of the foregoing, plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer immediate and irreparable injury.
H. PRAYER FOR RELIEF AS TO ALL CLAIMS
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs request that this Court: a) Certify this action as a class action; b) Grant a jury trial on all issue on which
plaintiffs are entitled as a matter or right;

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 30 Filed 12/14/1988 Page 12 of 13
c) Declare that defendants' confinement and restrictions of patients violate their rights as guaranteed by the First, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
d) Grant preliminary and permanent injunctive relief restraining and enjoining the defendants, their officers, agents, employees, attorneys, and successors in off ice, and all other persons in active concert and participation with them, from any further confinement or restrictions of plaintiffs in violation of their constitutional rights1
e) Award plaintiffs' costs and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 42 United States Code, Section 19881 and
f) Grant any other relief the Court deems equitable. Respectfully submitted,
Esquire een, Eisenberg and Cohen,Lawyers 1 Clematis Street, Suite 200 st Palm Beach, Florida 33401 lephone: (407) 659-2009
KAREN I. MEEKS, Esquire FLORIDA RURAL LEGAL SERVICES, Inc. 200 South Indian River Drive Suite 103 P.o. Box 4428 Ft. Pierce, FL 34948-4428 Telephone: (407) 466-4766 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 30 Filed 12/14/1988 Page 13 of 13

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the

foregoing THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT has been furnished by

regular u.S. mail to ERIC TAYLOR, Assistant Attorney

General, Office of the Attorney General, The Capitol Suite

1501, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050; and ANTHONY N.

DELUCCIA, JR., District Counsel, Department of Health and

Rehabilitative Services, District Eight, P.O. Box 06085,

~ Florida 33906 on the

day of

~~~~~___ , 1988.

U k : J~ K. GREEN

 
 Wood Memorial Hospital Complaint

Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
MILLER FRANK JOHNSON, et al., Plaintiffs UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Applicant for Intervention
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, LAWTON CHILES, Governor of the State of Florida; ED FEAVER, Secretary, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("HRS"); ROBERT CONSTANTINE, Assistant
Secretary of the Office of Alcohol, Drug Abuse & Mental Health; PHILIP L. DORSEY, HRS District 8 Administrator; MICHAEL BECKER, HRS District 5 Administrator; CHIP TAYLOR, HRS District 6 Administrator; SUE GRAY, HRS District 14 Administrator; WILBUR WILLIAMS, HRS District 15
Administrator; MYERS KURTZ, Director, G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, Defendants
Civil Action No. 87-369-CIV-T-24
COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION
_____________________________________
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA alleges:
1. This action is brought by the Attorney General on behalf of the United States of America pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997 et seq., to enjoin the named Defendants from depriving persons admitted to G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital in Arcadia, Florida ("G. Pierce Wood") of rights, privileges, or immunities secured and protected by the laws and Constitution of United States.
JURISDICTION, STANDING AND VENUE
2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1345.
3. The United States has standing to maintain this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997c.
4. The Attorney General has certified that all prefiling requirements specified in 42 U.S.C. § 1997c have been met. The Certificate of the Attorney General is appended to this Complaint and is incorporated herein.
5. Venue in the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1391. The claims set forth in this Complaint arose in said District.
DEFENDANTS
6. Defendant STATE OF FLORIDA owns and operates G. Pierce Wood, which is a state mental health facility located in Arcadia, Florida.
7. Defendant LAWTON CHILES is the Governor of Florida and, in this capacity, heads the Executive Branch of the State's government and, among other duties, reviews and approves budget requests submitted by Executive Branch agencies. He selects and appoints the Secretary of the Department of

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/gpwcomp.htm

5/15/2007

Wood Memorial Hospital Complaint

Page 2 of 5

Health and Rehabilitative Services ("HRS").
8. Defendant ED FEAVER is the Secretary of HRS and, in this capacity, exercises administrative control of, and responsibility for, G. Pierce Wood.
9. Defendant ROBERT CONSTANTINE is the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Alcohol, Drug Abuse & Mental Health and, in this capacity, administers the alcohol, drug abuse, and mental health programs operated by HRS, and who, along with Defendants FEAVER and DORSEY, has responsibility for the administration of G. Pierce Wood.
10. Defendant PHILIP L. DORSEY is the HRS District 8 Administrator and, in this capacity, administers the programs of health, social, and rehabilitative services in the district in which G. Pierce Wood is located and who, along with Defendants FEAVER and CONSTANTINE, has responsibility for the administration of G. Pierce Wood.
11. Defendant MICHAEL BECKER is the HRS District 5 Administrator and, in this capacity, administers the programs of health, social, and rehabilitative services in a district which is part of the catchment area served by G. Pierce Wood and who, along with Defendants FEAVER and CONSTANTINE, has responsibility for the services G. Pierce Wood patients receive in the community.
12. Defendant CHIP TAYLOR is the HRS District 6 Administrator and, in this capacity, administers the programs of health, social, and rehabilitative services in a district which is part of the catchment area served by G. Pierce Wood and who, along with Defendants FEAVER and CONSTANTINE, has responsibility for the services G. Pierce Wood patients receive in the community.
13. Defendant SUE GRAY is the HRS District 14 Administrator and, in this capacity, administers the programs of health, social, and rehabilitative services in a district which is part of the catchment area served by G. Pierce Wood and who, along with Defendants FEAVER and CONSTANTINE, has responsibility for the services G. Pierce Wood patients receive in the community.
14. Defendant WILBUR WILLIAMS is the HRS District 15 Administrator and, in this capacity, administers the programs of health, social, and rehabilitative services in a district which is part of the catchment area served by G. Pierce Wood and who, along with Defendants FEAVER and CONSTANTINE, has responsibility for the services G. Pierce Wood patients receive in the community.
15. Defendant MYERS KURTZ is the Director of G. Pierce Wood and, in this capacity, is responsible for the day-to-day operations of G. Pierce Wood.
16. The individual Defendants named in paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 above are officers of the Executive Branch of the State of Florida and are sued in their official capacities.
17. G. Pierce Wood is an institution within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1997(1).
18. Persons residing at G. Pierce Wood are individuals with special needs, including those with mental illness. Persons residing at G. Pierce Wood are "qualified individual[s] with a disability" pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, 12131.
19. The State of Florida, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, and G. Pierce Wood are "public entities" pursuant to Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12131.

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/gpwcomp.htm

5/15/2007

Wood Memorial Hospital Complaint

Page 3 of 5

20. 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.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
21. Defendants have failed and continue to fail to protect patients from harm by, inter alia:
a) Failing to identify, monitor, and appropriately identify those patients who need one-to-one or close supervision;
b) Failing to adequately deploy and supervise staff;
c) Failing to take adequate steps to prevent patient injuries; and
d) Failing to develop and implement an adequate system for investigating abuse and injuries.
22. Defendants have failed and are continuing to fail to provide patients residing at G. Pierce Wood with that level of care and treatment necessary to protect the liberty interests of patients by, inter alia:
a) Failing to properly assess and diagnose patients consistent with professional standards;
b) Failing to develop and implement appropriate treatment plans;
c) Failing to provide adequate, appropriate and individualized training programs and psychosocial rehabilitation; and
d) Failing to maintain professionally based recordkeeping systems.
23. Defendants have failed and are continuing to fail to ensure that each person confined at G. Pierce Wood is served in the most integrated setting necessary to meet the patient's individual need by, inter alia:
a) Failing to adequately evaluate patients for community placement;
b) Failing to place those patients whom professionals have determined should be placed in community programs in such programs; and
c) Failing to provide discharged patients with appropriate individualized discharge plans and aftercare services.
24. Defendants have failed and are continuing to fail to provide conditions of confinement that protect patients' substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
25. Defendants have failed and are continuing to fail to meet the requirements of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, by excluding G. Pierce Wood patients, by reason of their disability, from participation in or by denying them the benefits of services, programs, or activities, or by subjecting them to discrimination, and by failing to administer services, programs, and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs.
VIOLATIONS ALLEGED

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/gpwcomp.htm

5/15/2007

Wood Memorial Hospital Complaint

Page 4 of 5

26. The acts and omissions alleged in paragraphs 21 - 25 violate the rights, privileges, or immunities of G. Pierce Wood patients secured or protected by the laws and Constitution of the United States and deprive G. Pierce Wood patients of such rights, privileges, or immunities.
27. Unless restrained by this Court, Defendants will continue to engage in the conduct and practices set forth in paragraphs 21 through 25 that deprive the patients of G. Pierce Wood of their rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the laws and Constitution of the United States and cause them irreparable harm.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
28. The Attorney General is authorized under 42 U.S.C. § 1997 et seq. to seek equitable relief.
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 set forth in paragraphs 21 through 25 and to require
Defendants to take such actions as will ensure lawful conditions of confinement are afforded to patients at G. Pierce Wood. The United States further prays that this Court grant such other and further equitable relief as it may deem just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
__________________________
JANET RENO, Attorney General of the United States
MICHAEL L. SEIGEL, Acting U.S. Attorney, Middle District of Florida
DEVAL L. PATRICK, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division
WARREN A. ZIMMERMAN, Chief, Civil Division
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Middle District of Florida
500 Zack Street, Room 400
Tampa, Florida 33602
(813) 274-6000
ARTHUR E. PEABODY, JR., Chief, Special Litigation Section
ROBINSUE FROHBOESE, Deputy Chief, Special Litigation Section
TAWANA E. DAVIS

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/gpwcomp.htm

5/15/2007

Wood Memorial Hospital Complaint
WILLIAM G. MADDOX Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section P.O. Box 66400 Washington, D.C. 20035-6400 (202) 514-6534

Page 5 of 5

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/gpwcomp.htm

5/15/2007

 
 ---- --~--

' ..

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 68 Filed 06/09/89 Page 1 of 25 PageID 236

. 1

-.--~

"-

{j D. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ~ -c.6-1'

-~«~

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF F~IORIDA- :~/~ ~ ~

TAMPA DIVISION

l

MILLER FRANK JOHNSON, et al.,

-~.,

.y.+ '- '/ ~{- r. -1
.

A
~

Plaintiffs, v.

CIV-T~~O:': Case No. 87-369

:,,"" Ho,pito! p;Og",.],

DICK BRADLEY, et al.,

____D_ef_en_d_an_ts_. _______-.1

WHEREAS, the Third Amended Complaint herein was filed on March 30, 1988, on behalf of plaintiffs and other Similarly si tuated alleging, int~'J.lll, that defendants have failed to carry out their statutory and constitutional duties relating to the maintenance, operation and treatment at the G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital (GPW);
WHEREAS, the complaint alleges causes of action against
defendants arising under and jurisdiction pursuant to 42 u.s. C.
Sections 1983 and 1988; 28 U.S.C. Sections 2201 and 2202; and the Constitution of the United States, specifically but not limited to the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments thereto; and
WHEREAS, the signatories to this Consent Decree and Agreement of Settlement ("Agreement") represent that they are authorized to enter into this Agreement and to take all steps required of them by this Agreement, and
WHEREAS plaintiffs consider it desirable and in their best
interests and in the best interests of the members of the

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 68 Filed 06/09/89 Page 2 of 25 PageID 237

I

I.

plaintiffs' class to settle the issues set forth herein by entering into this Agreement7 and
WHEREAS, Defendants Bradley and Coler consider it desirable and in their best interests and in the best interests of G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital and the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services CHRS), and their successors in office to settle the issues set forth in the complaint by entering into this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of this settlement of the allegations, claims and prayers for relief set forth in the complaint, the parties, by and through their counsel, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:
§CQPE~[ A~REEMENT
Defendants and their successors, agents, servants and employees shall operate and maintain G. Pierce Wood Memor ial Hospital in compliance with the following:
HARD HQY§ING
1. With funds currently available, the department will renovate the laundry, repair the roofs on buildings 1, 53, 62, 68 and 69; apply $500,000.00 to correct life safety deficiencies; and obtain an architectural and engineering evaluation for improving patient living spaces. Subject to specific additional legislative appropriation before June 30, 1991, the defendants will remodel the isolation ward; remodel buildings 1 and 72; replace the lock system; apply $903,000.00 to continue roof ing repair; apply $1,850,000.00 to life safety corrections; renovate patient living areas; replace the elevators in building 68;

2

'. Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 68 Filed 06/09/89 Page 3 of 25 PageID 238
renovate the electrical system; renovate the sewage system; purchase an emergency generator; apply $278,000.00 toward paving roads; renovate the drainage systems; and renovate the boiler system. Additionally, defendants will construct signs directing clients, visitors, staff and all others to the nearest available restroom facility in all areas where clients are frequently outside and housing units are locked.
2. Beginning February 20, 1989, the defendant will assign clients to living units according to their functional levels and specialized program needs based on what is therapeutically appropriate for each client. As community facilities become available, based on specific additional, legislative appropriations, this shall include moving residents from (1) more to less structured living; (2) larger to smaller living facilities; (3) group to individual residence; (4) segregated from the community to integrated into community living; (5) dependent to independent living, according to their needs and as more specifically set forth in the Comprehensive Services Plan for the Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Program 1989-1993, pages 71-130, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
3. Subject to specific additional legislative appropriation on or before June 30, 1991, the defendant will provide additional behavioral staff training, behavior conSUltation and behavioral programs evaluation specifically for the purpose of implementing and supervising programs for aggressive, violent or self-abusive patients.
3

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 68 Filed 06/09/89 Page 4 of 25 PageID 239

4. Smoking and non-smoking areas on the wards shall be

designated and the defendant will comply with the DRS policy

regarding designated smoking areas and the Florida Clean Air Act.

PERSONAL PRIY~~I_ANR~!~N!~X

5. The defendants will comply with DRS Regulation (DRSR)

95-3, the department's psychotropic drug regulation for DRS

institutions and residential facilities.

This regulation

includes but is not limited to the following guidelines:

a. Psychotropic drugs are to be used in a prudent and

therapeutic manner consistent with the recommendations and

indications as stated in Drug Facts and COIDEaris~.

b. Psychotropic drugs shall not be used solely for

the convenience of staff but shall only be used in

accordance with an appropriately developed and implemented

treatment plan.

c. A patient's psychotropic drug regimen should be

reviewed by the attending physician in at least 31 days or

sooner if warranted by the particular drug prescribed or the

patient's response to the medication.

d. Appropriate laboratory tests will be performed for

patients on psychotropic medication, when indicated, to

prevent harmful side effects or to assist in achieving

therapeutic level.

e. Standing PRN orders for medications shall never be

permissible. Physical restraints may be utilized only for

prevention of acute self mutilative behavior or in an

emergency situation where the client shows evidence that he

4

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 68 Filed 06/09/89 Page 5 of 25 PageID 240
may injure others or cause substantial damage to the physical environment, or in transporting a client where complete freedom of movement poses a likely danger of bodily harm to the client or others and then only upon written documentation of specific instances of recent or immediate behavior that has lead to the conclusion that such restraints are necessary.
f. During the course of psychotropic drug therapy, patients will be properly monitored and adverse effects will be documented in the patient's medical records.
g. Psychotropic drugs will be used for as short a period of time as possible in order to control or prevent the reappearance of target symptoms. As soon as the patient's condition is stabilized, efforts should be made to gradually reduce drug dosages to a minimum.
h. The Drug Exception Request Form (HRS Form l582) must be utilized and approved for drug dosage variance, a non-formulary drug, the use of more than two psychotropics or the use of an approved drug for a non-approved use.
i. The defendants shall review current procedures for oversight of poly-pharmacological use for the purpose of assessing the need for increased monitoring or retention of an expert for the facility and provide a report by October 31, 1989.
j. Patients shall be informed of the identity of the drug they are taking, expected side effects, what side effects they should immediately report to the nurse or
5

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 68 Filed 06/09/89 Page 6 of 25 PageID 241
doctor, how long they may be on the medication, what their dose level is, and the goals that are expected to be attained by the treatment with the medication. 6. The defendants will comply with HRS Manual (HRSM) 1303, Standards and Requirements for Mental Health Facilities, paragraphs 2-28, governing restraint procedures and paragraph 229 governing seclusion. These procedures include but are not limited to the following requirements:
a. Physical restraints may be utilized only for the prevention of acute self-mutilative behaviors, or in an emergency situation where the client shows evidence that he may injure others or cause substantial damage to the physical environment, or as a preventative part of a necessary medical or rehabilitation treatment such as transporting a client where complete freedom of movement poses a likely danger of bodily harm to the client or to others.
b. Restraint orders must be authorized only by physicians who must examine the client within one hour after the initial order for restraints. These orders may not be renewed after a period exceeding four (4) continuous hours without the authorizing official's observation of the client, and for one-hour periods thereafter (with the personal observation of the authorizing official at each hour) not to exceed another four (4) hours.
c. The issuance of a standing order for the use of restraints is prohibited.
6

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 68 Filed 06/09/89 Page 7 of 25 PageID 242
d. Under all conditions of restraint, the patient must be observed every 15 minutes from the onset of restraint application.
e. Provision will be made for regular meals, use of the toilet as needed, and bathing (if appropriate) and the patient will be monitored continuously in these situations.
f. An opportunity for motion and exercise must be provided for a period of no less than 10 minutes during each hour in which the restraint is employed unless such opportunity is likely to endanger the staff and then such opportunity shall be denied only upon prior written authorization of a physician.
g. Restraints must be designed and used as not to cause injury to the client or staff and so as to cause the least possible discomfort.
h. Orders for restraints or restraint renewals must contain the precipitating circumstances for the order; the rationale for the order which will briefly state other less restrictive measures first attempted; the condition (s) for release, in terms of client behavior; the maximum length of time for the order; the specific restraints imposed; the date and time of day; and the name, legal signature, and job title of the authorizing official.
i. Physical restraints will not be used as corporal punishment or as a method of tethering client for the convenience of staff.
7

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 68 Filed 06/09/89 Page 8 of 25 PageID 243

j. Use of any restraint shall be reviewed by the

treatment team to determine the necessity for development

and implementation of a specific behavior management plan.

7. Daily reports will be made to the administrator

concerning the use of restraints, summar izing all such use of

restraints, the types used, the duration, and the reasons

therefore.

8. The institution shall cause a written statement of this

policy to be posted in each living unit and circulated to all

staff members.

9. Defendants acknowledge that patients have aright to

refuse treatment1 however, the purpose of a patient's placement

in a mental health facility is to receive and participate in

treatment for mental illness in order to reduce the risk of harm

to self or others.

Plaintiffs recognize that defendants may

petition for appointment of a guardian advocate where a patient's

refusal to comply with treatment poses a serious threat to the

patient's safety or the safety of others. Accordingly, patients

shall not be forced to accept treatment except in emergency

situations as authorized by guardian advocates and shall not be

punished for failure to comply with their treatment plan. Any

restrictions must be addressed as part of the treatment plan

process.

10. Under no circumstances shall patients be requested or

permitted to sign their treatment plans in blank1 i.e., before

all information is filled out. Patients shall have the right to

8

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 68 Filed 06/09/89 Page 9 of 25 PageID 244

be present durin9 treatment team meetin9s. Treatment plans may

be modified to reflect any pr09ress or lack thereof.

11. Window and shower curtains have been installed usin9

appropriate materials to provide for privacy and safety durin9

bathin9, includin9 break away bars, where appropriate.

12. Subject to specific le9islative appropriation, 182

wardrobe cabinets which can be locked will be provided to

patients who do not currently have individualized storage

facilities for personal possessions on or prior to December 31,

1989.

In addition, and subject to additional specific

le9islative appropriation, wardrobe cabinets which can be locked

shall be provided to all remainin9 patients who do not have

individualized storage facilities for personal possessions on or

prior to October 1, 1990.

13. Patients shall have available, if not provided by the

patient or patient' s family, five (5) sets of individualized

c l o t h i n9 ·

14. Direct ward personnel are not required to wear uniforms

and are permitted to wear street clothes, unless appropriate for

the staff's respective duties and responsibilities.

15. Patients and their effects shall not be searched or

have their rooms searched unless such search is based upon

reasonable belief of contraband or upon clinical indication. If a

patient is searched, or his room or her room is searched, the

reasonable belief or clinical indication should be documented and

the patient should be notified in writin9 that the search of the

patient or his or her quarters has taken place.

9

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 68 Filed 06/09/89 Page 10 of 25 PageID 245
-
RECRE~TIQH
16. The defendant shall comply with HRSM 130-1, Rights of Patients in State Mental Health Facilities, paragraphs 5-3, governing physical exercise and recreation. All patients have a right to regular physical exercise and recreational activities consistent with their treatment plans. This is accomplished by the following:
a. Providing, as available, appropriate and scheduled exercise and recreational periods for all patients as a part of their individual treatment plans.
b. Providing, with available funds, recreational equipment for both indoor and outdoor use.
c. Providing, with available funds, a library area supplied with current magazines, newspapers and books of general interest. This area is equipped with tables and chairs so patients can write letters, do hand crafts, read, or simply sit around and talk quietly; library material may also be checked out.
d. Clients shall have access to the canteen during all hours between 9:00 a.m. and dark, except that the canteen shall be closed for one (1) hour each day for cleaning or as required to properly maintain the facility from time to time.
e. The defendants shall develop a recreation program that encompasses structured as well as unstructured recreational activities, on campus and off campus, as well
10

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 68 Filed 06/09/89 Page 11 of 25 PageID 246

as programs designed as recreational therapeutic programs on

or before October 31, 1989.

f. Clients shall have a right to be outdoors daily,

weather permitting, in the absence of contrary medical or

treatment indications.

ACCEeS TQ_~Q2B~~

17. This issue is reserved for resolution by the

plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

TRA~NG1ACII!I~I~~_~t!D PR~~~

18. The defendants will have in place policies and

procedures regarding patient participation in treatment and the

documentation of treatment progress.

These policies and

procedures will include at least the following:

a. The patient will participate in the development of

his/her treatment plan and such participation will be

documented in the patient's record. Such participation will

not be limited to signature of approval without informed

consent. If the patient cannot or refuses to participate,

this will be recorded in the progress notes. There will

also be documentation that the patient has been informed of

his treatment plan.

b. Progress or lack of progress toward the attainment

of treatment goals is documented. For goals not attained,

the treatment team leader must be notified of actions taken

so that barriers to the goal may be identified and the plan

revised.

11

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 68 Filed 06/09/89 Page 12 of 25 PageID 247
c. The defendants shall develop a program providing for development of vocational and independent living skills and submit a plan therefore on or before October 31, 1989. 19. The defendant will comply with the requirements specified in HRSM 130-1, Rights of Patients in Mental Health Facilities, paragraph 5-4, regarding social contact between patients. A patient has the right to social contact with other patients as well as friends and visitors. The contact will be facilitated through the following actions:
a. Planned activities of a social nature shall be conducted regularly as a part of patient treatment and rehabilitation.
b. Joint recreational activities and projects open to both men and women patients shall be held on a regular basis.
c. Patients shall be allowed to interact in their living and recreational areas without segregation as to sex, age or race subject to reasonable restrictions as to time and place. 20. Patients have aright to use or refuse bi rth control devices and methods. 21. The defendant will comply with requirements in HRSM 130-1, Rights of Patients in Mental Health Facilities, paragraph 2-4, regarding patient freedom of movement. A patient shall have freedom of movement unless restriction or confinement is required by treatment or by order of the court. The freedom of movement shall be conducted according to the following procedures:
12

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 68 Filed 06/09/89 Page 13 of 25 PageID 248
a. Confinement of patients shall be limited only to the extent required by court orders and appropriate treatment plans.
b. All other patients are to be given maximum freedom of personal movement while at a mental health facilitY1 they can move about in their living spaces and on the facility grounds, and limited only by individual treatment plans for situations of danger to themselves or others.
c. Only the treatment team, the lead therapist, or in his/her absence, the RN supervisor may, direct restriction of movement of clients. In either event, the treatment team must review the decision to restr ict a client's movement immediately upon coming on duty if the team is not on duty when the restriction occurs. This policy will be effected as soon as possible upon proper training and staffing. Pr ior to any restr iction of movement in excess of twentyfour (24) hours, or any restriction of movement being proposed as part of the treatment plan, clients shall be provided with written notice, prior to the treatment team review, of a hearing before the team review and a written statement of the grounds for the restriction. If the person proposing the restr iction of movement is a member of the treatment team, he/she shall have no vote on the final outcome of the decision, nor shall the client.
~QMMYHIC;~TIQH
22. Staff shall not be permitted to use any of the patient telephones described above, nor shall staff monitor any patient
13

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 68 Filed 06/09/89 Page 14 of 25 PageID 249
telephone calls without court order or upon probable cause to believe that the patient is using the telephones to commit a crime or to endanger the safety of himself or others, or upon specification of the treatment plan based on recent documented misuse of telephones. Any authorization of telephone monitoring in the treatment plan shall specify the precipitating circumstances and contain a limitation on the duration of the monitoring with notice to the patient.
23. The defendants will comply with the requirements of HRSR 130-1, paragraph 6-5, regarding patient grievances. A patient has the right to present to responsible authority any grievance he may have regarding his treatment or services. The grievance procedure shall be conducted through the following procedures:
a. Upon admission, each patient shall be advised of the grievance procedures available to him.
b. Patients should first verbalize any complaint in ward meetings and to the immediate staff of their treatment team. Positive action should solve most problems at this level.
c. A patient with a grievance may make it in writing on the form provided by the facility.
d. Each facility shall have a Patients Grievance Committee made up of appropriate hospital staff and with patient representation. This committee shall meet as necessary for the specific purpose of reviewing, discussing and recommending action regarding patient grievances.
14

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 68 Filed 06/09/89 Page 15 of 25 PageID 250

e. Patients,

their

relatives,

or

legal

representatives may write grievances directly to the

administrator of the facility. Such written grievance

communications will be handled individually, with sufficient

investigation to satisfy the situation and circumstances.

f. Grievance decisions at any level may be appealed

to the next higher level. Grievances carried beyond the

administrator of the facility will be turned over to the

respective HRS District Administrator for review and final

decision.

g. Clients shall not be punished for making any

complaints.

VI§ITA~IQN

24. The defendants will comply with requirements in HRSM

30-1, The Rights of Patients in State Mental Facilities,

paragraph 6-3, regarding visitation practices. Patients may meet

with visiting persons as desired. Implementation of visitation

rights will be conducted through the following procedures:

a. Patients may see all visitors unless specific

orders are written by his/her treatment team restr icting

such visits. He may refuse to see a visitor if he desires.

Visitors are subject to general operating and visiting

regulations of the facility.

b. Patients will have the right to receive legal

counsel anytime they desire. Subject to normal operations

of the facility, patients will have the right to receive a

personal therapist or clergy anytime they desire.

15

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 68 Filed 06/09/89 Page 16 of 25 PageID 251
25. The defendant will comply with the requirements of GPW Policy 5-6 regarding visitation. This policy states in part:
a. Children under the age of 12 and accompanied by an adult may visit with a patient in designated areas. Leashed pets may also be brought to designated areas.
b. Children over the age of 12 accompanied by an adult may visit with the patient in the lobby area of his/her residential unit or other designated visiting areas. Areas will be designated to accommodate geriatric nonambulatory patients desiring to visit with leashed pets and children under the age of 12 and accompanied by an adult.
MEDICAL AND HEALTH
26. The defendant will comply with the requirements of HRSM 130-1, The Rights of Patients in Mental Health Facilities, paragraphs 3-2, which in part states the following:
a. Each patient shall receive a complete physical examination upon admission, and at least annually thereafter.
b. Each patient under in-patient treatment and rehabilitation for mental and emotional disturbances in a state mental health facility also shall receive prompt and adequate medical and dental treatment and rehabilitation for any physical ailments which may develop during hospitalization to the point where treatment and rehabilitation shall meet the standards for the medical practice in the community. This principal shall not be
16

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 68 Filed 06/09/89 Page 17 of 25 PageID 252
construed to require cosmetic surgery or other procedures not necessary to prevent pain or deterioration.
c. Each patient shall be assigned a physician who will have primary responsibility for his examination and diagnosis.
[OOD 27. The defendant will comply with the requirements in HRSM 130-3, Standards and Requirements for Mental Health Facilities, paragraphs 2-5, regarding dietetic services which states in part:
a. The facility will provide clients with a nutritionally balanced and palatable diet prepared under sanitary conditions.
b. The dietetic service shall include methods of ensuring that clients receive the correct diet regimen ordered by the physician.
c. All diets must be prescr ibed by a physician in writing, dated and signed.
d. Patients will be provided with a nutritionally balanced diet as determined by the current Recommended Dietary Allowances of the Food and Nutrition Board, National Research Council, adjusted by age, weight, sex, and activity of clients.
e. Defendants shall make reasonable accommodation to meet the dietary restrictions of religions when requested by the client, next of kin, or guardian on behalf of the client.
17

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 68 Filed 06/09/89 Page 18 of 25 PageID 253
f. Clients shall be provided fresh fruits and vegetables on a daily basis.
g. Persons requiring special diets shall not be restricted to eating on the wards.
h. Clients may sit where they wish to eat their meals (within the dining room).
~ENTQ ' ADYI~RY ~YN~IL
28. A patients' Advisory Council shall be in operation with one representative elected by the patients of each ward. The hospital administrator will meet with the hospital advisory council on a regular basis, at least one time per month.
FIRE_PRQTE~IQN
29. The defendants will comply with GPW operating procedure 215-3 regarding the facility's fire plan which requires in part:
a. All buildings will have a Fire Evacuation Plan posted in a conspicuous place. The Fire Evacuation Plan is a pictorial diagram of the route by which patients and staff would get out of the building in case of fire or sounding the fire alarm. All non-employees should notify staff in the event of a fire.
b. One fire drill per month will be conducted in patient areas. All fire drills will be conducted following a procedure which includes, but is not limited to, evacuating patients, notifying appropriate staff and individuals, and simulating fire fighting activities such as extending hoses and isolating a fire by closing windows, doors and shutting off fans.
18

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 68 Filed 06/09/89 Page 19 of 25 PageID 254
c. All patients in seclusion or restraints at the time of the drill shall be notified of the fire drill and if they are not taken out, at least one staff member shall be left behind in the building to be with them. 30. Within 60 days of the date of this Agreement, the defendant will request an inspection of the facility be conducted by the local State Office of Licensure and Certification. The request will include that a report of specific def iciencies be submitted to the facility. Subject to specific additional legislative appropriation on or before June 30, 1991, the defendants will apply $1,850,000.00 (referred to in item 1 of this Agreement), if appropriate, to life safety corrections which may include correction of identified fire deficiencies.
31. Within current FY 1988-89 funds, the defendants will add 66 new staff positions as authorized in proviso language in the 1988-89 General Appropriations Act on or before June 30, 1989.
32. Subject to specific additional legislative appropriation, on or before June 30, 1991, six new behavioral staff will be added to the facility and will be responsible for programs for aggressive, violent, or self-abusive clients.
33. The Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Program of HRS will evaluate staffing utilization and potential needs for the 1990-91 Legislative budget. This analysis, budget proposal and the rationale therefore will be submitted to the plaintiffs' counsel prior to finalization of the HRS budget request; i.e., on
19

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 68 Filed 06/09/89 Page 20 of 25 PageID 255
or before August 31, 1989. Defendants agree to consider plaintiffs' concerns, including but not limited to recreation, vocational and living skills' training and behavioral analysistrained individuals.
34. Plaintiffs' counsel and their representatives shall have access, with reasonable notice to defendants' counsel, to the records, files and papers maintained by defendants relating to G. Pierce Wood Memor ia1 Hospital and its patients. During normal business hours, plaintiffs' counsel shall have access, with reasonable notice to defendants' counsel, to G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital.
35. Plaintiffs and defendants shall reach an agreement as to an appropriate objective monitor or submit the issue for determination by the Court on the date of Court ap,,.~&t of this decree.
PROGRAM.e~ANDARDe
36. Within three (3) years, GPW shall bring itself into compliance with JCAHO program standards.
37. Patients shall be identified as Rdischarge readyR based upon determination by the treatment team which will include participation of the client and his case manager. Subject to availability by specific additional legislative appropriations, community placement will be made consistent with the availability of services in the GPW catchment area and consistent with need as
20

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 68 Filed 06/09/89 Page 21 of 25 PageID 256
identified in the Comprehensive Services Plan for Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Program, pages 71-130, attached hereto.
38. The hospital shall not be able to discharge a patient who has eloped. A court-ordered patient who escapes and is not found, can be discharged when the Court Order expires.
COMMQNITY-BASED tREATMENT 39. Implementation-..9.,j_t.~_l!B~~prehensi v~~~'Lices _Plsm for_ th.iL1i.~cohol( -1U:yg_A.buse and ~nt.~l_.!I~~j.~lLy-~Qg.ram 1~89-93. HRS will give priority to the three districts serving GPW in the implementation of all aspects of the five-year plan, to include but not be limited to:
a. The defendants will develop legislative budget requests and allocate undesignated appropriations to distr icts whose current funding for community services is below the state average in an effort to bring them into funding parity with the remaining HRS districts.
b. Subject to specific additional legislative appropriation, the defendants will allocate $178,927 in Fiscal Year (FY) 1989-90 and $236,917 in FY 1990-91 to HRS Districts 5, 6 and 8 to enhance the Continuity of Care Management System (CCMS) and bring the three districts into par i ty with other HRS districts. If unappropriated, the defendants will continue to give priority to funding requests for HRS Districts 5, 6 and 8 until parity is obtained.
c. All current residents at GPW who have been there over 90 days will be assessed by a placement team comprised
21

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 68 Filed 06/09/89 Page 22 of 25 PageID 257
, /
Y

of at least one member approved by plaintiffs, by April 2, 1990. These assessments will focus on the placement needs

and the package of services needed for clients currently

institutionalized to be served appropriately in the

community. Districts in the GPW catchment area will

integrate the findings of these assessments into their

planning and budgets for FY 90-91 and future years.

40. Placement--2!__ ~urJent _Lo~~-Term Residents at GPW.

During the period of build-ups of the community service system,

the 375 plaintiffs housed at GPW longer than one (1) year who

are discharge ready and do not require continuing hospital

treatment must also receive community placement in numbers

according to the following schedule:

1989-90

50 placements

1990-91

75 placements

1991-92

100 placements

1992-93

150 placements

41. In addition, defendants agree that allocation of beds at GPW to HRS Districts 5, 6 and 8 shall reflect the level of 15 beds per 100,000 persons by December 31, 1993.
42. Defendants will evaluate the central and district staff ing needs for implementation of the settlement and Comprehensive Plan to be completed in time for budgeting and allocation for needed manpower in the 1990-91 budget. This analysis should include, but not be limited to, administrative, program and facility development staff, contract management

22

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 68 Filed 06/09/89 Page 23 of 25 PageID 258
staff, case management and case management supervision staff, quality assurance and secretarial support.
43. The defendants shall develop a plan to use, to the extent possible and as appropriate, federal entitlement program funds available to mental health clients. This plan shall be completed and provided to the court by December 31, 1989.
Pursuant to Rule 23(e), F.R.C.P., defendants shall, within ten (10) days of the execution of this Agreement, provide notice of this Agreement and the proposed settlement to those members of the plaintiffs' class presently committed to GPW by posting in each ward in a place accessible to patients, a notice in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. The costs of providing such notice shall be borne by defendants in their official capacities. Class members shall have 30 days after notice to them to object to this Agreement or the proposed settlement. All objections will be considered by the court.
Promptly upon execution of this Agreement, counsel for the parties shall jointly submit such Agreement to the Court for its approval and recommend that this Court approve the Agreement. Counsel for both parties also shall take all steps that may be required or requested by the Court and use their best efforts to consummate this settlement, obtain the Court's approval of this Agreement, and obtain entry of a final judgment.
23

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 68 Filed 06/09/89 Page 24 of 25 PageID 259

Agreement, including all its terms, conditions, exhibits, and the Court's Orders.
2. Within ten (10) days of entry of an Order of the Court approving this Agreement, counsel for the parties shall execute a Stipulation of Dismissal in such form as is attached hereto as Exhibit B which, within five (5) days after execution, shall be filed with the Court by counsel for the plaintiffs.
3. Neither party will appeal the Order attached hereto as Exhibit C if such order is entered by the Court.
4. By November 15, 1989, and after October 31, 1989, the parties hereto will appear before the court at an hour and date to be hereinafter set by the Court for a status conference. Defendants shall request the Governor of the State of Florida and his successors select a representative from his or her office to oversee implementation of this decree and facilitate budgetary, legislative and administrative changes necessary to implement this decree.

This Agreement and its exhibits contain the entire Agreement

between the parties.

~

STIPULATED AND AGREED TO THIS ~ DAY OF ~ _______ ,

1989.
~~~--------
RICHARD BRADLEY, Acting
Administrator for G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital

K. GREEN, ESQ. Counsel for Plaintiffs

25

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 68 Filed 06/09/89 Page 25 of 25 PageID 260
~--"I--'-;=- ~--...-
JAME O. WILLIAMS, JR., ESQ. Counsel for the Department f Health and Rehabilitative Services
26

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

MILLER FRANK JOHNSON, ET AL.,

Pl

aintiffs,

v. GEORGE H. SHELDON,

Case No. 8:87-cv-369-T-24 TBM

Defendant. ___________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes before the Court for consideration of two motions: (1) Defendant's First

Motion to Exit Consent Decree (Doc. No. 1565) and (2) Defendant's Supplemental Motion to

Exit Consent Decree (Doc. No. 1577). These motions were considered by United States

Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III. Judge McCoun has filed his report recommending

that the motions be granted in part. (Doc. No. 1611). All parties were furnished copies of the

Report and Recommendation and were afforded the opportunity to file objections pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Objections to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation were filed by

both parties. (Doc. No. 1612, 1613). Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation

and the parties' objections thereto, and upon this Court's independent examination of the file,

including reviewing the transcript of the hearing that was held on April 9, 2009 (Doc. No. 1594),

it is determined that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 1611) should be adopted.

I. Background

At issue in these motions is whether four districts--Suncoast Region ("SCR"), District 8

("D-8"), District 14 ("D-14"), and District 15 ("D-15")--have complied with the community

compliance exit criteria set forth in the Stipulation Regarding Exit Criteria that was executed by
the parties on February 12, 1993 ("1993 Stipulation"), as modified by the Court's Order dated
March 19, 2004 (Doc. No. 1551), such that they may exit the Consent Decree and end this
litigation. Pursuant to the 1993 Stipulation, the level of compliance required to exit is defined as
follows:
1. 85 percent of all class members will achieve positive results on 6 of the 7 (85%) community compliance areas.
2. Each district will exit any individual community compliance area when 85 percent or more people in the sample meet the requirements of any compliance area(s). Monitoring will continue for the full sample across all seven community compliance areas until the required performance level of 85 percent has been achieved in all seven compliance areas. Monitoring of those compliance areas where the standard has been previously achieved shall be considered technical assistance and any future scores shall not affect the district(s) ability to exit overall.
3. Each district will exit independent of the performance of any other district when the performance criteria stated on 1 and 2 above have been achieved.
(Doc. 1605, p. 5 of 18).
The definition of the class has been an issue in several Orders. (Doc. No. 54, 246, 1498,
1516). The class definition includes "those patients discharged from GPW [G. Pierce Wood
Memorial Hospital] into a community treatment facility." (Doc. No. 1498). In an Order dated
January 15, 2003, the Court clarified this class definition by stating that "patients who move out
of the catchment area or who refuse treatment lose their status as class members." (Doc. No.
1498). Thereafter, on April 11, 2003, this Court further clarified the class definition and stated
the following:
[C]lass members have the right to make treatment decisions, including the decision to refuse treatment. Individuals who refuse all treatment lose their status as class members. Clearly, the Court did not intend the refusal of treatment to include sporadic refusals of medication, such as the refusal of certain medications due to
2

side effects or pregnancy. Nor did the Court intend the definition to apply to those individuals who refuse certain treatments or certain treatment facilities only to change their minds a short time later, or to those individuals who are not competent to refuse treatment. . . . Refusal of treatment means a refusal of all treatment for a significant period of time. (Doc. No. 1516). Based on the community compliance reviews conducted in 2007 and 2008, Defendant contends that the four remaining districts have complied with the community compliance exit criteria set forth in the 1993 Stipulation, because each district achieved compliance in at least six of the seven community compliance areas in 2007 or 2008. In response, Plaintiffs challenge whether certain class members were improperly excluded from these reviews due to Defendant improperly classifying certain patients as no longer being members of the class. Specifically, Plaintiffs challenge whether patients classified as "movers" (those who moved out of the catchment area) and "refusers" (those who refused all treatment for at least 90 days) were improperly excluded. With regards to patients classified as "movers," Defendant takes the position that according to this Court's Order stating that "patients who move out of the catchment area . . . lose their status as class members," it properly excluded patients who moved out of the catchment area, even if such patients later moved back. (Doc. No. 1498). With regards to patients classified as "refusers," Defendant takes the position that if a patient refused all treatment for at least ninety days, such patient is deemed to have refused all treatment for a significant period of time, and according to this Court's April 11, 2003 Order, such patient is no longer a member of the class. The monitor reviewed the 2007 and 2008 community compliance reviews, and she evaluated Defendant's compliance with the community compliance exit criteria under three scenarios: (1) under Defendant's definition of the class, which excluded all patients who moved
3

out of the catchment area or who refused all treatment for at least ninety days, (2) under Defendant's definition of the class, plus the excluded movers and refusers identified by the Monitor (with the assumption that all of these excluded movers and refusers would fail the compliance reviews), and (3) under Defendant's definition of the class, plus the excluded refusers identified by the Monitor (with the assumption that all of these excluded refusers would fail the compliance reviews). Below is the Monitor's summary of Defendant's compliance with the seven community compliance areas under each scenario (Doc. No. 1605, p. 15):
2007

D-8 D-14 D-15 SCR

Defendant's definition of the class (which excludes movers and refusers)

Defendant's definition of the class, plus movers and refusers identified by the Monitor

Defendant's definition of the class, plus refusers identified by the Monitor

6 out of 7

6 out of 7

6 out of 7

7 out of 7

1 out of 7

6 out of 7

6 out of 7

3 out of 7

6 out of 7

7 out of 7

6 out of 7

6 out of 7

2008

D-8 D-14 D-15 SCR

Defendant's definition of the class (which excludes movers and refusers)

Defendant's definition of the class, plus movers and refusers identified by the Monitor

Defendant's definition of the class, plus refusers identified by the Monitor

6 out of 7

6 out of 7

6 out of 7

7 out of 7

3 out of 7

7 out of 7

7 out of 7

5 out of 7

7 out of 7

5 out of 7

5 out of 7

5 out of 7

Accordingly, under Defendant's definition of the class and interpretation of the community compliance exit criteria, all four districts should be allowed to exit the Consent

4

Decree, because each district achieved compliance in at least six of the seven community compliance areas in 2007 or 2008. However, under Plaintiffs' definition of the class (which includes both movers and refusers) and interpretation of the community compliance exit criteria, none of the districts should exit the Consent Decree, because none of the districts achieved compliance in all seven of the seven community compliance areas in 2007 or 2008. Additionally, under the third alternative definition of the class (which includes refusers but does not include movers), D-14 and D-15 can exit the Consent Decree, because those two districts achieved compliance in all seven of the seven community compliance areas in 2008.
After reviewing the motions and holding a hearing on April 9, 2009, Judge McCoun made the following conclusions and recommendations: With regards to the issue of whether Defendant correctly classified movers as no longer being members of the class once they move out of the catchment area, even if they later return, Judge McCoun agreed with Defendant's interpretation of this Court's January 15, 2003 Order. As such, Judge McCoun overruled Plaintiffs' objection regarding the exclusion of movers from the compliance reviews.
With regards to the issue of whether Defendant correctly classified refusers as no longer being members of the class after refusing all treatment for 90 days, Judge McCoun rejected Defendant's position. Instead, Judge McCoun agreed with Plaintiffs' position that when this Court stated in its April 11, 2003 Order that in order to be excluded from the class, the patient must refuse all treatment for a significant period of time, the Court meant refusal for more than 90 days. Additionally, Judge McCoun agreed with the Monitor that eight of the patients that were excluded from the compliance reviews as refusers, but who were identified by the Monitor
5

as having not consistently refused all treatment for at least twelve to fourteen months, should not have been excluded from the class.1
As a result of these conclusions regarding which patients made up the class, Judge McCoun recommended that D-14 and D-15 be allowed to exit from the Consent Decree, because those two districts achieved compliance in all seven of the seven community compliance areas in 2008. Defendant argued that the Court's supervision had gone on long enough, and given its substantial compliance with the community compliance exit criteria, the Court should also allow D-8 and SCR to exit from the Consent Decree. Judge McCoun rejected Defendant's argument based on the 1993 Stipulation.
In the 1993 Stipulation, the parties specifically agreed that the community compliance exit criteria "shall be the sole and exclusive method for assessing the Defendants' performance and determining their completion of designated community-based obligations."2 (1993 Stipulation, p. 7, ¶ 7). Additionally, the 1993 Stipulation provides that the exit criteria shall be the sole and exclusive method for determining termination under the Consent Decree unless the parties agree otherwise and obtain the Court and Monitor's approval. (1993 Stipulation, p. 4, ¶ 1). II. Plaintiffs' Objections to the Report and Recommendation
After Judge McCoun issued his Report and Recommendation, Plaintiffs filed their objections thereto. Specifically, Plaintiffs object to Judge McCoun's determination that
1Four were in SCR, and four were in D-15). (Doc. No. 1611, p. 6). 2The 1993 Stipulation was filed at Doc. No. 343. However, the Court issued an Order on July 12, 1994 (Doc. No. 457) that was incorrectly docketed and resulted in the Clerk's Office improperly striking Doc. No. 343. As such, on September 29, 2009, the Courtcalled the attorney for the Monitor and requested that he file a copy of the 1993 Stipulation so that it would be in the record.
6

Defendant properly excluded from the compliance reviews patients that moved out of the catchment area but later returned. In support of their position that movers should not have been excluded from compliance reviews, Plaintiffs argue: (1) movers should be treated similarly to refusers and should not be excluded if they have not moved out of the catchment area for a significant period of time, and (2) excluding movers infringes on their constitutional right to travel because it results in them forfeiting their right to treatment based on their decision to travel. These arguments have no merit.
The Court rejects Plaintiffs' argument that patients who move out of the catchment area should be treated the same as patients who refuse treatment, and as such, movers should not lose their status as class members if they return to the catchment area before a significant period of time elapses. Requiring a patient to refuse all treatment for a significant length of time before excluding the patient from the class ensures that the patient's right to make treatment decisions is protected and recognizes that a short-term refusal of treatment can have a legitimate medical purpose or reason (such as side-effects, pregnancy, or incompetency) that does not necessarily indicate a long-term decision to refuse all treatment. However, moving out of the catchment area is viewed by the Court as more of a long-term decision. If a patient decides to move and reside elsewhere, implicitly, the patient is making a decision to terminate his or her treatment within the catchment area.
Furthermore, excluding movers from the compliance reviews does not infringe on their right to travel. Choosing to move and reside outside of the catchment area is different from traveling. Also, the movers' right to treatment is not affected in any way; instead, movers are simply no longer included in the compliance reviews. Judge McCoun noted in his Report and
7

Recommendation that movers who returned to the catchment area were not denied treatment when they returned, and instead, such patients are treated as "priority clients" upon their return.
Accordingly, the Court overrules Plaintiffs' objections to the Report and Recommendation. As such, the Court adopts Judge McCoun's recommendation that the Court find that Defendant did not improperly exclude movers from the compliance reviews. III. Defendant's Objections to the Report and Recommendation
Defendant also filed objections to Judge McCoun's Report and Recommendation. Specifically, Defendant objects to Judge McCoun's recommendation that D-8 and SCR not be allowed to exit the Consent Decree. In support of its contention, Defendant makes the following arguments: (1) there is new information showing that SCR achieved compliance in all seven of the seven community compliance areas in 2007; (2) Judge McCoun incorrectly applied the community compliance exit criteria; and (3) the Court should employ the "flexible approach" set forth in Horne v. Flores, 129 S. Ct 2579 (2009), and find that the Consent Decree should be terminated based on Defendant's substantial compliance. Upon review, the Court defers ruling on the first argument and rejects the remaining two arguments.
A. New Information Regarding One Refuser Defendant first argues that there is new information showing that one of the four refusers in SCR that the Monitor and Judge McCoun determined was still part of the class was not auditable in 2007. Specifically, Defendant contends that this one refuser was in a state treatment facility for the entire period covered by SCR's 2007 compliance review, and as a result, that patient should not have been considered. As such, Defendant argues that if that refuser is
8

excluded from the 2007 compliance review, then SCR achieved compliance in all seven of the seven community compliance areas in 2007.
The current motions have been pending for more than a year, and this Court is not inclined to delay its ruling based on this new information. As such, the Court will permit Defendant to file a motion and raise the issue of whether SCR fully satisfied the community compliance exit criteria in 2007 based on this new information regarding the one refuser. The Court will consider this new argument after it is fully briefed and both Plaintiffs and the Monitor have had an opportunity to review the new information and respond.
B. Application of the Community Compliance Exit Criteria Next, Defendant argues that Judge McCoun incorrectly applied the community compliance exit criteria by requiring two levels of compliance, one of which he deemed required compliance in all seven of the seven community compliance areas.3 For the first time, Defendant now argues that paragraphs 1 and 2 of the community compliance exit criteria describing the level of compliance required to exit the Consent Decree is contradictory. This argument has no merit. Pursuant to the 1993 Stipulation, the level of compliance required to exit the Consent Decree is defined as follows:
3The seven community compliance areas can be briefly described as follows: (1) placement in the community in a less restrictive setting than GPW; (2) clinical assessments; (3) functional assessments; (4) treatment planning services based upon pr ofessional judgm ent at the level and intensity needed; (5) opportunities to exercise choice based upon available alternatives and to participate in the development of his/her SIP; (6) level and intensity of services, descbried in the SIP goals, to meet the class members’ needs; and (7) detailed progress notes. In the remainder of this Order, the Court sometimes refers to these seven community compliance areas as seven community-based benefits.
9

1. 85 percent of all class members will achieve positive results on 6 of the 7 (85%) community compliance areas.
2. Each district will exit any individual community compliance area when 85 percent or more people in the sample meet the requirements of any compliance area(s). Monitoring will continue for the full sample across all seven community compliance areas until the required performance level of 85 percent has been achieved in all seven compliance areas. Monitoring of those compliance areas where the standard has been previously achieved shall be considered technical assistance and any future scores shall not affect the district(s) ability to exit overall.
3. Each district will exit independent of the performance of any other district when the performance criteria stated on 1 and 2 above have been achieved.
(Doc. 1605, p. 5 of 18).
Based on the plain language set forth above, there are two levels of compliance: First,
85% of the class must achieve positive results in six of the seven community compliance areas.
This first level of compliance ensures that each class member is obtaining at least six of the
seven community-based benefits. Thus, this first level focuses on whether each member is
generally receiving the community-based benefits as a whole.
Second, each of the seven community-based benefits must have been received by at least
85% of the class. This second level of compliance ensures that each of the community-based
benefits are being provided to at least 85% of the class. Thus, this second level focuses on the
provision of each specific community-based benefit.
Accordingly, there are two levels of compliance that must be met before a district can
exit the Consent Decree, and these two levels are set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the
community compliance exit criteria. Defendant's argument that there are not two levels of
10

compliance and/or that paragraphs 1 and 2 are contradictory borders on frivolous.4 Furthermore,
to the extent that Defendant argues that in order to exit the Consent Decree, there must only be
compliance in six of the seven community compliance areas, Defendant's position is negated by
the plain language cited above, which clearly requires compliance in all seven of the seven
community compliance areas.
C. Substantial Compliance
Next, Defendant argues that based on the recent Supreme Court case, Horne v. Flores,
129 S. Ct. 2579 (2009), this Court should terminate the Consent Decree. Specifically, Defendant
argues that based on the "flexible approach" described in Horne regarding the evaluation of
motions filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5)5 and Defendant's substantial
compliance with the community compliance exit criteria, this Court should terminate the
Consent Decree.
In Horne, the Supreme Court stated the following regarding Rule 60(b)(5):
[T]he Rule provides a means by which a party can ask a court to modify or vacate a judgment or order if a significant change either in factual conditions or in law renders continued enforcement detrimental to the public interest. The party seeking relief bears the burden of establishing that changed circumstances warrant relief, but once a party carries this burden, a court abuses its discretion when it refuses to modify an injunction or consent decree in light of such changes.
4Equally as frivolous is Defendants' argument, raised for the first time in its objections to the Report and Recommendation, that paragraph 2 of the community compliance exit criteria contains a typographical error in the second sentence such that the phrase "six of the" was inadvertently left out. According to Defendant, paragraph 2 should read as follows (with the allegedly m issing phrase added in br ackets): "Monitoring will continue f or the f ull sam ple acr oss all seven com munity com pliance areas until the required performance level of 85 percent has been achie ved in all [ six of the] seven compliance areas." There is no support for Defendant's argument.
5Rule 60(b)(5) provides that a c ourt m ay relieve a party from a judgm ent when applying it prospectively is no longer equitable.
11

Rule 60(b)(5) serves a particularly important function in what we have termed “institutional reform litigation.” For one thing, injunctions issued in such cases often remain in force for many years, and the passage of time frequently brings about changed circumstances-changes in the nature of the underlying problem, changes in governing law or its interpretation by the courts, and new policy insights-that warrant reexamination of the original judgment.
Id. at 2593 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The Court went on to state:
[I]n recognition of the features of institutional reform decrees, we have held that courts must take a “flexible approach” to Rule 60(b)(5) motions addressing such decrees. A flexible approach allows courts to ensure that responsibility for discharging the State's obligations is returned promptly to the State and its officials when the circumstances warrant. In applying this flexible approach, courts must remain attentive to the fact that federal-court decrees exceed appropriate limits if they are aimed at eliminating a condition that does not violate [federal law] or does not flow from such a violation. If [a federal consent decree is] not limited to reasonable and necessary implementations of federal law, it may improperly deprive future officials of their designated legislative and executive powers.
For these reasons, a critical question in this Rule 60(b)(5) inquiry is whether the objective of the . . . . declaratory judgment order . . . has been achieved. If a durable remedy has been implemented, continued enforcement of the order is not only unnecessary, but improper.
Id. at 2494-95 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Defendant argues that in 2007, D-8 failed to achieve compliance in only one of the seven
of the community compliance areas. Specifically, in the community compliance area of
treatment planning, D-8 scored an 84%, which is 1% less than the minimum required score of
85% needed for compliance. (Doc. No. 1573, p. 21 of 26) Therefore, Defendant argues, if in
2007, just one of the patients in D-8 that had scored negatively in treatment planning had
actually scored positively, then D-8 would have achieved the required minimum score of 85% in
all seven of the community compliance areas.6
6Defendant's substantial compliance argument is also based on the assumption that the Court accepts Defendant's contention based on new information that oneof the refusers in SCR should have been excluded from the 2007 compliance review, and if that refuser had been excluded, then SCR would have achieved
12

While the Court acknowledges that Defendant has undertaken sweeping modifications and improvements to the community mental health system within the catchment area in the past ten years, the Court finds that it must honor the parties' agreement regarding how to determine when the Consent Decree should be terminated. As previously stated, the parties specifically agreed in the 1993 Stipulation that the community compliance exit criteria "shall be the sole and exclusive method for assessing the Defendants' performance and determining their completion of designated community-based obligations." (1993 Stipulation, p. 7, ¶ 7). Additionally, the 1993 Stipulation provides that the exit criteria shall be the sole and exclusive method for determining termination under the Consent Decree unless the parties agree otherwise and obtain the Court and Monitor's approval. (1993 Stipulation, p. 4, ¶ 1). Given that the parties have not agreed that the Consent Decree should be terminated, and given that SCR and D-8 have not yet demonstrated full compliance with the community compliance exit criteria, termination is not warranted under the terms of the 1993 Stipulation. Furthermore, the Court finds that the application of the flexible approach delineated in Horne does not change the Court's conclusion that the objective of the Consent Decree has not yet been achieved. Therefore, the Court declines Defendant's invitation to terminate the Consent Decree, despite Defendant's substantial compliance.
compliance in all seven of the community compliance areas. However, as previously stated, the Court has deferred ruling on this argum ent at this time and has directed Defendant to file a m otion addressing this issue.
13

IV. Conclusion Accordingly, it is now ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: (1) The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 1611) is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order of the Court. (2) Defendant's First Motion to Exit Consent Decree (Doc. No. 1565) and Defendant's Supplemental Motion to Exit Consent Decree (Doc. No. 1577) are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART: The motions are GRANTED to the extent that the Court finds that District 14 and District 15 have fully satisfied the community compliance exit criteria and are authorized to exit the Consent Decree and the Court's supervision and Orders thereunder; otherwise, the motions are DENIED, except that Defendant may raise the issue of whether the Suncoast Region fully satisfied the community compliance exit criteria in 2007 based on the new information regarding the one refuser that Defendant contends should have been excluded from the 2007 compliance review. Monitoring shall continue in accordance with the Consent Decree and the community compliance exit criteria as to District 8 and the Suncoast Region. DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, this 30th day of September, 2009.
Copies to: The Honorable Thomas B. McCoun III Counsel of Record
14

 
 Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1625 Filed 02/19/10 Page 1 of 4 PageID 11044

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

MILLER FRANK JOHNSON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CASE NO. 8:87-cv-369-T-24 TBM

GEORGE H. SHELDON, et al.,

Defendant. /

ORDER

This cause comes before the Court for consideration of Defendant’s Unopposed

Dispositive Motion to Exit Suncoast Region and District 8 and Terminate Consent Decree (Doc.

No. 1618). Upon this Court’s independent examination of the file and after conducting a hearing

upon the unopposed motion on February 11, 2010, in which all parties and the Court Monitor

were heard, it is determined that the Suncoast Region and District 8 are allowed to exit the

Consent Decree (Doc. No. 68); the Stipulation Regarding Exit Criteria (Doc. No. 1615) has been

complied with; the remaining paragraphs of the Consent Decree – 2, 35, and 37 – are vacated;

the injunctions are dissolved; the Consent Decree is terminated and this Court relinquishes its

jurisdiction over this cause.

I. Background

In the Court’s Order dated September 30, 2009, (Doc. No. 1614) related to Defendant’s

First Motion to Exit Consent Decree (Doc. No. 1565) and Defendant’s Supplemental Motion to

Exit Consent Decree (Doc. No. 1577), it found that District 14 and District 15 had fully satisfied

the community exit criteria and were authorized to exit the Consent Decree and the Court’s

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1625 Filed 02/19/10 Page 2 of 4 PageID 11045
supervision and Orders thereunder. As to Suncoast Region and District 8 the motions were
denied. However, Defendant was given leave to raise the issue of whether Suncoast Region fully
satisfied the community compliance exit criteria in 2007 because one “refuser” (one who refused
all treatment for at least 90 days) should have been excluded from the 2007 compliance review.
The Court further ordered that monitoring should continue in accordance with the Consent
Decree and the community compliance exit criteria as to District 8 and the Suncoast Region.
Pursuant to the 1993 Stipulation, the levels of compliance required to exit are defined as
follows:
1. 85 percent of all class members will achieve positive results on 6 of the 7 (85%) community compliance areas.
2. Each district will exit any individual community compliance area when 85 percent or more people in the sample meet the requirements of any compliance area(s). Monitoring will continue for the full sample across all seven community compliance areas until the required performance level of 85 percent has been achieved in all seven compliance areas. Monitoring of those compliance areas where the standard has been previously achieved shall be considered technical assistance and any future scores shall not affect the district(s) ability to exit overall.
3. Each district will exit independent of the performance of any other district when the performance criteria stated on 1 and 2 above have been achieved.
(Doc. No. 1615: Exhibit 1 to Stipulation, p. 3).
II. Full Compliance with the Exit Criteria
On November 13, 2009, the Office of the Monitor issued its 2009 Suncoast Region
Community Exit Criteria Compliance Reviews Report of Findings, which concluded as follows:
The Suncoast Region has achieved full compliance with both requirements of the community exit criteria. As this report documents, this area actually achieved all of the requirements for exiting the lawsuit in 2007, but the error was not discovered until
2

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1625 Filed 02/19/10 Page 3 of 4 PageID 11046
recently. While in 2008, Suncoast Region did not meet the requirements for compliance, that review would not have occurred had the real findings for 2007 been known. And given that the area achieved compliance in 2007 and scored very highly during the 2009 reviews, it is clear that the Suncoast Region has met both of the requirements for a finding of full compliance. (Doc. No. 1618-1: Exhibit 1, Monitor’s 2009 Suncoast Region Report of Findings, p. 7). On December 19, 2009, the Office of the Monitor issued its 2009 District 8 Community Exit Criteria Compliance Reviews Report of Findings, which concluded as follows: Given that the Monitor’s November 13, 2009 report on the Suncoast Region’s 2009 community compliance review confirmed full compliance with both requirements of the exit criteria and this report confirms that District 8 has achieved full compliance with both requirements of the community exit criteria, the Office of the Monitor concludes that defendants have complied with all of the provisions of the exit criteria. (Doc. No. 1618-2: Exhibit 2, Monitor’s 2009 District 8 Report of Findings, p. 6). At the hearing conducted on February 11, 2010, the Court confirmed with the parties, that once the unopposed motion is granted it would terminate the Consent Decree and the Court’s jurisdiction over this cause. The Monitor affirmed the purpose of the Consent Decree had been achieved and that there is no significant likelihood of recurring violations of federal law once the Consent Decree has been lifted.
3

Case 8:87-cv-00369-SCB Document 1625 Filed 02/19/10 Page 4 of 4 PageID 11047
III. Conclusion Accordingly it is now ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: (1) Defendant’s Unopposed Dispositive Motion to Exit Suncoast Region and District 8 and Terminate Consent Decree (Doc. No. 1618) is GRANTED. (2) The Court finds that Suncoast Region and District 8 have fully satisfied the community compliance exit criteria and are authorized to exit the Consent Decree and the Court’s supervision and Orders thereunder. In addition, the Court finds Defendant has complied with the Stipulation Regarding Exit Criteria (Doc. No. 1615). (3) The Court further finds the purpose of the Consent Decree has been achieved and that there is no significant likelihood of recurring violations of federal law once the Consent Decree has been lifted. Johnson, et al. v. State of Florida, et al., 348 F. 3d 1334, 1343 (11th Cir. 2003). In keeping with this determination the Court dissolves all injunctions, terminates the Consent Decree, relinquishes jurisdiction over this cause, and orders the Clerk to close the case. DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida this 19th day of February, 2010.
Copies to: The Honorable Thomas B. McCoun III Counsel of Record
4

 
 Johnson v. Murphy
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division June 28, 2001, Decided ; June 28, 2001, Filed Case No. 8:87-Civ-369-T-24TBM

Reporter: 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24013 MILLER FRANK JOHNSON, et al., Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. MICHAEL MURPHY, et al., Defendants.
Subsequent History: Affirmed by Johnson v. Fla., 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 22282 (11th Cir. Fla., Oct. 29, 2003)
Disposition: Final judgment entered in favor of defendants.
Counsel: [*1] For LINDA L. GLENN, DOROTHY J. ROWE: Michael J. Dale, Nova University Shepard Broad, Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
For MILLER FRANK JOHNSON, LLOYD KOGER, GAIL BJERKENES, SANDRA GUINN, DANIEL FENNELL, plaintiffs: Elizabeth Lewis Bevington, Stephen Forcey Hanlon, Holland & Knight, Tallahassee, FL USA.
For MILLER FRANK JOHNSON, LLOYD KOGER, GAIL BJERKENES, SANDRA GUINN, DANIEL FENNELL, plaintiffs: Steven J. Schwartz, Northampton, MA.
For MILLER FRANK JOHNSON, LLOYD KOGER, GAIL BJERKENES, SANDRA GUINN, DANIEL FENNELL, plaintiffs: Robin L. Rosenberg, Holland & Knight LLP, St. Petersburg, FL USA.
For MILLER FRANK JOHNSON, LLOYD KOGER, GAIL BJERKENES, SANDRA GUINN, DANIEL FENNELL, plaintiffs: James K. Green, James K. Green, P.A., West Palm Beach, FL.
For UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, intervenor-plaintiff: Warren A. Zimmerman, Michael L. Seigel, U.S. Attorney's Office, Middle District of Florida, Tampa, FL USA.
For UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, intervenor-plaintiff: Deval L. Patrick, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Janet Reno, Attorney General, Joseph R. Zogby, Robinsue Frohboese, Verlin H. Deerinwater, Aileen M. Bell, U.S. Department of Justice, Lisa Wilson Edwards, Department of Justice, [*2] Washington, DC.
For UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, intervenor-plaintiff: Arthur E. Peabody, Jr., U.S. Attorney's Office, Alexandria, VA.

For G. PIERCE WOOD MEMOR, FL DEPT OF HEALTH/RE, ROBERT WILLIAMS, MARTIN VON HOLDEN, defendants: Edwin Jason Vail, Mark S. Dunn, Attorney General's Office, Tallahassee, FL USA.
For G. PIERCE WOOD MEMOR, FL DEPT OF HEALTH/RE, ROBERT WILLIAMS, defendants: Morris E. Shelkofsky, Jr., Attorney General's Office, Tallahassee, FL USA.
For G. PIERCE WOOD MEMOR, FL DEPT OF HEALTH/RE, defendants: Anthony N. Deluccia, Jr., Florida Dept. of HRS, Ft. Myers, FL USA.
For G. PIERCE WOOD MEMOR, FL DEPT OF HEALTH/RE, ROBERT WILLIAMS, MARTIN VON HOLDEN, defendants: Thomas B. York, Victor P. Stabile, Steven B. Goodman, Dilworth Paxson LLP, Harrisburg, PA.
For STATE OF FLORIDA, JEB BUSH, ED FEAVER, ROBERT CONSTANTINE, FRANCES GIBBONS, LYNN RICHARD, DON DIXON, SUE GRAY, PAM PAULICK, MARTIN VON HOLDEN, intervenor-defendants: Edwin Jason Vail, Mark S. Dunn, Attorney General's Office, Chesterfield Smith, Jr., Office of the Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL USA.
For STATE OF FLORIDA, JEB BUSH, ED FEAVER, ROBERT CONSTANTINE, FRANCES GIBBONS, LYNN [*3] RICHARD, DON DIXON, SUE GRAY, PAM PAULICK, MARTIN VON HOLDEN, intervenordefendants: Thomas B. York, Victor P. Stabile, Steven B. Goodman, Dilworth Paxson LLP, Harrisburg, PA.
MARK GRAY, movant, Pro se, Sarasota, Fl.
For AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, movants: Mark S. Dunn, Attorney General's Office, Tallahassee, FL.
For AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, movant: Thomas B. York, Victor P. Stabile, Dilworth Paxson LLP, Harrisburg, PA.
For DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, movant: Ronald L. Harrop, Gurney & Handley, P.A., Orlando, FL USA.

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24013, *3

Page 2 of 13

Judges: SUSAN C. BUCKLEW, United States District Florida serves approximately 350 persons at GPW, and over

Judge.

eighty-five percent of those patients are involuntarily

Opinion by: SUSAN C. BUCKLEW

committed pursuant to the Baker Act, Fla. Stat. Chpt. 394. Under 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2), current and former patients of

GPW are "qualified individuals with disabilities" as defined

Opinion

by the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The defendants in this case are "public entities" that are subject to

ORDER

the requirements of Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)(B).

This cause came before the Court on a non-jury trial held during the weeks of August 7, 2000 through September 8, 2000. During the trial, the parties called numerous factual and expert witnesses and introduced documentary evidence. Subsequent to the trial, the parties submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

There are approximately thirty admissions to GPW each month, and approximately the same number of discharges. Persons discharged from GPW are generally discharged to one of the five Department of Children and Family Services districts in GPW's cachement area, Districts 5, 6, 8, 14 and 15. These five districts cover nineteen counties in central

BACKGROUND

Florida.

This case was originally filed on March 11, 1987 by a class of plaintiffs on behalf of mentally ill persons who are or have been patients [*4] at G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital ("GPW"), a state psychiatric hospital in Arcadia, Florida. In 1989, the case was partially settled by a consent decree, with the Court retaining jurisdiction over the case. Court monitors were appointed to monitor compliance with the aforementioned consent decree. On April 2, 1998, the United States intervened in this action pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act ("CRIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1997, et seq. In its complaint in intervention, the United States alleges that conditions at GPW violate the constitutional rights of current and former patients. The United States also alleges that the defendants 1 are violating the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12134, by failing to provide services and programs to current and former GPW patients in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. The United States seeks prospective injunctive relief on behalf of these current and former .GPW patients.
[*5]
FINDINGS OF FACT
General:
G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital is a state psychiatric hospital located in Arcadia, Florida. The overwhelming majority of patients served at GPW have severe and persistent mental illnesses. At any one time, the State of

Reasonable Care and Safety:
GPW provides [*6] conditions of reasonable care and safety to its patients. GPW takes reasonable steps to minimize or prevent harm to GPW patients, and the conditions of care and safety at GPW comply with accepted standards of professional judgment. Specifically, GPW provides its patients with adequate supervision; adequate treatment for self-injurious or assaultive behavior; adequate protection from environmental hazards; and adequate systems and procedures regarding the investigation of and response to adverse incidents.
Supervision
With regard to adequate supervision of patients at the Hospital, GPW bases its staffing on a number of variables such as the number of new admissions that the hospital receives, and on information related to staffing needs that is gathered from the medical staff by the clinical director. Tr. 8/24, 29.4-30.8. 2 As there are no national standards that set guidelines for psychiatric staffing, GPW bases its staffing decisions on institutional specific factors. Id. GPW has fourteen full-time psychiatric positions, and a fifteenth position that primarily involves supervisory and administrative duties. Tr. 8/30, 115.17-24. Additionally, the hospital has six general [*7] care service physicians. Tr. 8/30, 115.25-116.5. Similarly, nurses at GPW are provided pursuant to a formal "Plan for Providing Nursing Care" which is based on "ideal" nurse staffing levels. Tr. 8/30, 37, 39, and 59. Consistent with the American

1 G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital; The Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services; Robert Williams, in his official capacity; Howard M. Talenfeld; the State of Florida; Jeb Bush, Governor of the State of Florida; Ed Feaver, in his official capacity; Robert Constatine, in his official capacity; Frances Gibbons, in her official capacity; Lynn Richard, in her official capacity; Don Dixon, in his official capacity; Sue Gray, in her official capacity; and Martin Van Holden, in his capacity as Administrator of G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital.
2 References to trial transcripts are given in the following format: "Tr. month/day, page.line-page.line".

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24013, *7

Page 3 of 13

Nurses' Association's standards, the nurse staffing program at taken out of restraints (if needed) as soon as possible. Tr.

GPW is based on patient need rather than on hours per patient 8/24, 87.10-90.14; 91.1-5.

per day. Tr. 8/30, 45-46. While more nurses at GPW would be ideal, the hospital is still able to meet the nursing care needs Protection from Environmental Hazards

of its patients with the nursing staff that is currently provided. Tr. 8/30, 59. As to semi-professional and/or non-professional staff at the hospital, GPW provides registered nurse supervision of all "LPN" nurses on duty. Tr. 9/5, 41. Furthermore, the hospital has systems in place to monitor direct staff and nursing deficiencies, to include a corrective action plan if staffing deficiencies are found. Tr. 9/5, 19-24, 61-62.

As a general observation, [*10] the rate of patient injuries at GPW is less than the national average as measured in national surveys of other large state psychiatric hospitals. Tr. 8/31, 160.12-164.3. During the relevant time periods in this matter, the number of serious injuries to patients from environmental hazards was relatively low and there were no patterns of negligence present. Tr. 8/28, 156.12-159.8; Exhibit D-120 at 62-64. As to "contraband" at the hospital (such as drugs or

[*8] Treatment for Self-Injurious or Assaultive Behavior

weapons), staff at the hospital are generally not allowed to search patients, but searches are conducted when there is

With regard to treatment for self-injurious or assaultive probable cause and in emergency circumstances. Tr. 9/5,

patient behavior, GPW has a system in place where such 165.19-22; 167.8-169.6. Most contraband found at the

behavior is noted on patient records; reviewed by treatment hospital, however, is brought in by visitors, and the staff at the

teams as to patient needs and progress; and modified hospital calls the local sheriff's department if they suspect that

depending on patient progress, team input, and response to a visitor has brought in illegal contraband. Tr. 9/5, 170.17-

precaution levels. Tr. 8/23, 187.10-213.12; Exhibit D-122 at 171.10. As to subjective contraband (such as shoelaces, belts,

25-26. GPW also has an independent mortality review process towels, etc.), restrictions are placed on patients on a case-by-

by which fatal incidents at the hospital are sometimes case basis. The hospital's "subjective contraband" policy

reviewed by the University of South Florida Department of attempts to maintain as much of a "home-like" environment

Psychiatry & Behavioral Medicine. Exhibit D-65; Tr. 8/30, as possible. Tr. 9/6, 117.7-119.18.

133.17-22. Patients who have indications and/or histories of self-injurious or assaultive behavior are placed on appropriate As to structural safety hazards at the [*11] hospital (such as precautionary levels and participate in specific treatments doorknobs, plumbing fixtures, etc.), the hospital evaluates

designed to decrease their risk of harm. See, e.g., Case of Tonya W., Exhibit D-122 at 48-50; Tr. 8/24. 10.3-13.11; Case of Paul B., Exhibit D-122 at 25-26; Tr. 8/23, 187.10-213.12. Further, the hospital has a system in place whereby a peer review committee meets after a death occurs to evaluate and make recommendations as to what steps, if any, need to be taken to ensure [*9] the safety of patients at the hospital. Tr. 8/30, 123.9-124.9, Case of Rodney S., DOJ Exhibit 182A at 6-7 (noting post-incident recommendations made by mortality review committee).

safety through an interaction between a specific environment and the patients in that environment based on level of supervision and level of privileges in a particular location. Tr. 8/28, 163.8-164.18. While it is impossible to make any environment completely free of hazards and accidents have occurred due to environmental hazards, GPW acts to remove suicide and safety hazards while attempting to balance the comfort, self-esteem, and self-respect of its patients. Tr. 8/30, 57. Pursuant to a review by the hospital's engineering department, GPW has enacted an "action plan" for the removal of environmental hazards. Tr. 8/8, 155.14-157.14. In

With mentally ill patients like those at GPW, there is often no accordance with its action plan, the hospital has removed

real way to predict who will commit suicide or injure environmental hazards such as door knobs, ceiling grids, and

themselves due to the fact that such behavior is often an plumbing fixtures, and has replaced glass fixtures with lexon

impulsive event that is based on unidentifiable factors. plexi-glass. Tr. 9/5, 181.18-183.24.

Exhibit D-24; Tr. 8/31, 148.2-151.15, 154.24-155.10. However, in cases where patients do show identifiable signs Investigation and Response to Adverse Incidents

of self-injurious behavior, the hospital has treatment teams that meet with those patients to evaluate their condition. Case of Leon G., Tr. 8/30, 204.6-205.19. Once a self-injurious patient's condition is evaluated, status notes are made and hospital staff members take action in accordance with the patient's treatment plan. Id. Further, in cases where patients exhibit signs of immediate harm to themselves or others, they are placed on "one-on-one" precautions, are immediately seen by a doctor, and are

At GPW, reports of incidents are recorded on "Resident Occurrence Report" forms ("ROR"). While many hospitals do not record commonplace events (such as cursing, shouting, or pacing) on formal reports, [*12] GPW "over-reports" incidents in that it has a policy of recording common events that would not be recorded elsewhere. Tr. 9/5, 244.10-246.4; Tr. 9/6, 93.14-24. Many of the events reported by GPW are considered normal or trivial at other

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24013, *12

Page 4 of 13

hospitals. Tr. 8/28, 168.3-18. However, GPW's reporting Management Department that identifies patterns and trends at

policy is based on the premise that an excess of information is the hospital based on patient and staff incidents. Tr. 9/6,

better than not getting enough information. Tr. 9/6, 92.24- 57.12-59.2; 58.10-59.2. As noted above, the hospital also has

93.24. This policy results in a large number of ROR's, many a mortality review process by which incidents of death are

of which are concerning minor incidents. See id. However, in sometimes reviewed by the University of South Florida to

some ROR's filed during the times relevant to this action, determine whether there was appropriate care and conduct.

certain patients at the hospital made serious allegations of Exhibit D-65.

rape and sexual assault. Serious incident reports are

investigated by the hospital, and with regard to the Standard of Professional Care

aforementioned allegations of rape and sexual assault, postreport investigations found that they were unsubstantiated. There have been no substantiated incidents of rape or sexual assault at the hospital. Tr. 9/6, 66.2-15; 99.8-100.14; Tr. 9/5, 173.25-174.21; 216.23-217.17. Similarly, while some ROR's at the hospital contain patient allegations of other serious activity or violations (such as illegal drug use), few of those allegations [*13] turned out to be substantiated. Tr. 9/6, 116.4-22. Additionally, many ROR's which contain incidents such as patient assaults or accidents are based on events where patients were not injured (such as verbal assaults by patients). Tr. 9/6, 105.16-108.11.

With respect to reasonable [*15] care and safety of patients, GPW takes reasonable steps to minimize or prevent harm to GPW patients, and the conditions of care and safety at GPW comply with accepted standards of professional judgment. Accepted standards of professional judgment in the field of psychiatry should be based upon training, experience, judgment, and current peer reviewed literature in the field. Tr. 8/23, 39.4-40.15. While organizations such as HFCA and JCAHO do set some standards for psychiatric hospitals, those standards exceed generally accepted professional standards of care for patients at hospitals like GPW. Tr. 8/23, 36.6-36.9, 37.23-24. Thus, the fact that a hospital or part of a hospital

The hospital has in place programs to assure proper response to and investigations of adverse incidents. These programs include security investigations, internal hospital investigations, a patient grievance process, high risk reviews, retrospective case reviews, and mortality reviews. Tr. 9/5, 164.10-18; 9/6, 35-64. Information gathered from these programs is disseminated to treatment teams and staff members for assessments and modifications. Tr. 9/6, 114.20115.2, 111.7-19. All "significant reportable events" (as that term is defined by the State) are reported to State officials

has lost or does not have HFCA and/or JCAHO accreditation does not necessarily mean that accepted professional standards of care are not being utilized. See id. At GPW, the treatment of self-injurious behavior (Tr. 8/23, 47.12-52.9); the supervision and care of patients (Tr. 8/30, 133.17-22; Tr. 9/5, 59-60; Tr. 8/30, 81-83); the prevention of harm from environmental hazards (Tr. 8/28, 164.19-24); and the reporting and investigation of adverse incidents (Tr. 9/6, 3564) all comply with accepted standards of [*16] professional judgment.

pursuant to a formal "SRE" reporting policy. Tr. 9/6, 91.1192.2; 94.8-95.3. Additionally, hospital investigators give Treatment:

priority to the investigation of serious incident reports according to a standardized set of criteria set forth by the hospital. Tr. 9/6, 39.1-40.20; 9/6, 38.12-25. Such investigations are subjected to supervisory review and are often supplemented [*14] with follow-up investigations. Tr. 9/6, 39.1-40.20.

Patients at GPW are provided adequate treatment that complies with accepted professional judgment, practice, and standards. Specifically, patient assessment, treatment planning, provision of treatment, and discharge planning are adequate and acceptable.

In addition to the procedures discussed above, Florida's Department of Children and Family Services operates an investigative unit known as Adult Protective Services which operates an "abuse hotline" which GPW patients have access to. Tr. 9/6, 42.21-44.23. Hospital employees also have access to the hotline and are required to immediately report any instances of abuse that they observe. Id. Furthermore, the hospital's resident advocate and resident advocate attorney, along with the hospital administrator, are involved in the patient grievance process to assure that allegations of abuse and neglect are investigated on a multi-level basis. Tr. 9/6, 50.22-54.7. The hospital also has a Quality Management/Risk

Patient Assessment
As a general guideline for patient assessment, GPW has developed a model assessment form which is found in its Psychology Department Manual. Tr. 8/31, 87.1-89.25. In 1996, Dr. Lyon, the Director of Psychology, developed a procedure to implement detailed psychological reports in conjunction with the hospital's protocol monitoring department. Tr. 8/31, 89.13-91.11. In addition to the hospital's protocol audit of assessment records, Dr. Lyon developed a system of qualitative review of assessments when he took over as Director of Psychology in 1996. Tr. 8/31, 99.17100.7; 207.6-15. Under this review process, a small number of initial patient assessments were found to

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24013, *16

Page 5 of 13

be "poor" due to the fact that the assessment sheets were done issues. Tr. 8/24, 78.5-16. During treatment team meetings,

in a "fill-in-the-blanks" type manner. Tr. 8/31, 94.17-96.7. team members at GPW are aware of the clinical histories of

However, a vast majority of the assessment forms reviewed at the participating patients, and discussions during these

the hospital [*17] were accurate in their observations and meetings are thoughtful and clinically informed. Exhibit D-

ranged from "adequate" to "quite good." Tr. 8/25, 88.19-90.3. 123 at 60. Patients at GPW are encouraged to engage in active

With regard to poor assessments, the hospital implemented treatment and psychosocial rehabilitation. Tr. 8/28, 72.25-

corrective action which included revising its Psychology 79.22. Additionally, a significant number of staff members at

Manual. Tr. 8/31, 96.10-98.20. Further, in July of 1999, the GPW are trained and/or certified in substance abuse issues to

hospital prepared a research paper which compared Positive provide treatment and support to patients with substance

and Negative Syndrome Scale ("PANSS") 3 test scores with abuse problems. Tr. 8/31, 103.4-104.8.

results from national and international studies, as well as results from other Florida state hospitals. Exhibit D-26. That research study showed that GPW was properly performing the PANSS test in conjunction with its assessment of patients. Tr. 8/31, 139.13-24.

Psychosocial rehabilitation at GPW is based on non-medical interventions designed to foster the rehabilitation of psychiatric patients and includes family therapy, skills training, vocational rehabilitation, and psychotherapy. Tr. 8/25, 76.2-19. While psychotherapy is one of the most

Treatment Planning

common forms of psychosocial [*20] rehabilitation, many

techniques are used in the field, and there are no widely Treatment planning at GPW is a process that encompasses a accepted professional standards in psychosocial rehabilitation.

patient's entire chart, a specific treatment plan, and the Tr. 8/25, 79.5-80.21; Tr. 8/29, 137.24-140.24. At GPW,

specific knowledge of treating professionals. Tr. 8/23, 107.1218. [*18] Treatment planning for a patient is also a fluid concept in that it may change based on progress, specific needs, and specific behavior. Tr. 8/23, 187.10-213.12. Treatment plans at the hospital are implemented with the goal of reducing inappropriate behavior and symptoms and preparing the patient for discharge. Tr. 8/23, 138.24-144.6. Treatment planning at GPW includes, inter alia, therapeutic activities, DBT, and individual psychotherapy. Tr. 8/24, 10.3-

treatment professionals rely on their training and experience to choose the best form of psychosocial rehabilitation that is most likely to help individual patients. Tr. 8/25, 78.2-22. One particular model of psychosocial rehabilitation used by GPW in an adapted form is a "role recovery" model, which represents one of many professionally acceptable treatment methods in the field. Tr. 8/25, 83.19-85.5; Tr. 8/29, 236.1237.16. GPW has a goal of twenty hours per week of therapeutic interventions, and patient contacts are made each

13.11. Through specific individual treatment plans, patient day in various forms and durations. Exhibit D-47; Tr. 8/29,

charts, and progress notes, treatment plans at GPW are 242.14-243.12; 245.6-20; Exhibit D-114 at 11-12.

informative as to what type of treatment a patient is receiving, Additionally, GPW has therapeutic programs and services

to include what type of medication, if any, a patient is taking. Tr. 8/24, 140.2-7; 140.11-15; Exhibit D-135. Frequent patient progress notes serve to inform treatment professionals of changes in a patient's treatment and medication regime. Tr.

available to patients such as on and off-ward training/skills programs; recreation and leisure activities; and grounds where patients are free to walk. Tr. 8/25, 124.1-125.14; 126.7-128.2; Exhibit D-114 at 14-20. Finally, while there are no specific

8/24, 147.1-18; 149.20-25; 150.3-17. Further, treatment team programs at the hospital that are exclusively for Spanish-

meetings with patients are made part of treatment planning at speaking [*21] patients, GPW has bi-lingual and multi-

GPW. Exhibit D-123 at 8-16. In summary, treatment planning at GPW consists of individualized treatment regimes, specific interventions, individual psychotherapy, group psychotherapy, rehabilitation, [*19] and individual

lingual staff members (who are fluent in Spanish and other languages) that help facilitate communication with nonEnglish speaking patients. Tr. 8/31, 218.10-17.

psychopharmacologic interventions. Tr. 8/24, 93.16-22.

Discharge Planning

Provision of Treatment
The provision of psychological treatment at GPW is multifaceted. One method of treatment is "SIP meetings" or treatment team meetings wherein patients and treatment team members discuss past management and treatment

According to GPW policy, a patient's individual treatment plan is developed shortly after admission, and this plan or "SIP" includes discharge planning. DOJ Exhibit 148 at 2. Discharge planning is reviewed and modified during "SIP updates" or modifications, and community case managers often participate in SIP meetings to discuss discharge planning. Tr. 9/8, 96.17-98.8. Furthermore, patient

3 The PANNS rating scale is a type of assessment test that references a normative sample of schizophrenic patients as a basis for comparison. Tr. 8/31, 110.22-111.14.

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24013, *21

Page 6 of 13

discharge skills (such as bathing, taking medication, etc.) are account the resources available to the State and the needs of

annotated on discharge planning forms such as the "7001 others with disabilities.

Form" and the "Interdisciplinary Discharge Summary" form. Tr. 9/8,83.17-85.23. As an additional element of discharge planning, the hospital attempts to involve family members in the patient discharge process for support and patient needs. Tr. 9/8, 85.25-87.18.

Upon discharge from GPW, patients are provided several community placement options, (such as family homes, private apartments, assisted living facilities, etc.), according to their needs and abilities. Tr. 8/15, 58.3-5; 59.1-6; Tr. 9/8, 75.1976.5. While many factors influence the stability of community

While evidence was presented at trial that some patients' tenure for mentally [*24] ill patients (such as fluctuations in

discharge plans did not comply with hospital policy, mental condition, resources, and need for crisis care), patients

discharge planning at GPW as a whole is adequate and discharged from GPW are usually successful in remaining in

acceptable. Tr. 9/8, 81.25-82.21; [*22] 178.9-18. Often, community settings . Tr. 8/10, 83.5-84.5; Tr. 8/15, 84.3-85.6.

GPW's plan for discharge and placement is limited due to the Once patients are discharged into community settings, GPW

fact that patients who are no longer involuntarily committed continues to contact and follow-up with those patients

sometimes choose not to cooperate with the hospital. Tr. 9/8, pursuant to individual discharge plans. Tr. 8/15, 52.24-53.7.

93.24-96.15. However, community case managers are actively In June of 1999, GPW initiated a community outreach

involved at the hospital in both discharge planning and program based on a "community ACT team" model. Tr. 9/5,

discharge follow-up. Tr. 9/8, 69.2-70.25; Exhibit D-117 at 11- 146.1-148.25. That community outreach program is designed

13. Community case managers that work with GPW as to augment the discharge process by providing additional

treatment team members are knowledgeable about placement, support and services to patients in community settings. Tr.

service options, and patients in their area. Tr. 9/8, 81.25-82.9. 9/5, 148.17-149.14. Once patients are discharged into

Standard of Professional Care

community settings from the hospital, they are provided with sufficient "staff-to-client" support to meet their needs. Tr. 9/8,

As noted above, accepted standards and judgments in the field of psychiatry should be based upon training, experience, judgment, and current peer reviewed literature in the field. Tr.

42.7-24. Further, the community settings in which patients are placed are integrated and less restrictive than a hospital or institutional setting. Tr. 8/17, 183.19-22.

8/23, 39.4-40.15. Also as noted above, there are no widely accepted professional standards in psychosocial rehabilitation. Tr. 8/25, 79.5-80.21; Tr. 8/29, 137.24-140.24. Patient assessment (Tr. 8/25, 89.13-91.11), treatment planning (Tr. 8/24, 93.2-93.7), provision of treatment (Tr. 8/24, 78.5-16; Tr. 8/25, 101.18-25; 103.8-15;, and discharge planning (Tr. 9/8, 81.25-82.21; 178.9-18) are adequate and acceptable; and patients [*23] at GPW are provided adequate treatment that complies with accepted professional judgment, practice, and standards.

In some cases, patients at GPW are discharged into assisted living facilities or "ALF's." ALF's are privately owned and operated facilities that provide living assistance [*25] to those in need of it. Tr. 8/15, 55.13-56.8. While there was evidence of poorly operated ALF's, assisted living facilities are perfectly acceptable as discharge options for some patients. Only a small percentage of patients from GPW are actually discharged into ALF's. DOJ Exhibit 212, Appendix D; DOJ Exhibit 333. Typically, over half of the patients at GPW are discharged into independent living or family homes,

Community Services:

and another twenty percent of patients are discharged into "group living situations" sponsored by community health

providers. Id. Current and former GPW patients are provided adequate

community mental health services to meet their assessed Unnecessary Isolation functional and clinical needs in an integrated setting that is

appropriate to those needs.

The defendants' mental health program, as administered, does

Placement in Community Settings

not result in unnecessary isolation of patients into segregated settings. Consistent with the intent of Florida's "Mental

The defendants in this matter are placing persons with mental disabilities in community settings rather than in institutions when the relevant treatment professionals have determined that community placement is appropriate; the transfer from institutional care to a less restrictive setting is not opposed by the affected individual; and the placement can be reasonably accommodated, taking into

Health Act", the defendants in this matter strive to serve patients with the least restrictive interventions based on the individual needs of each patient, within the scope of available services. Tr. 9/6, 199.13-15; 201.17-201.25; Exhibit D-146A at § 394.453. Basic and core services to facilitate community integration are found in all of the districts that comprise the GPW catchment area. Tr. 9/7,

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24013, *25

Page 7 of 13

33.18-23. Independent reports and [*26] studies, such as a committed sometimes choose not to cooperate with the

February, 1999 report by OPPAGA and a May, 1998 report hospital. Tr. 9/8, 93.24-96.15. However, community case

by the Federal Department of Health and Human Services, managers are actively involved at the hospital in both

have found that Florida is employing a community-based discharge planning and discharge follow-up. Tr. 9/8, 69.2-

system of mental health care in a "least restrictive" 70.25; Exhibit D-117 at 11-13. Community case managers

environment. DOJ Exhibit 71; Exhibit D-100 at i-iii.

that work with GPW as treatment team members are

knowledgeable about placement, service options, and patients

Array and Intensity of Community Services

in their area. Tr. 9/8, 81.25-82.9.

The defendants are providing an appropriate array and intensity of community services. The residential options available to patients discharged from GPW are logistically adequate due to the fact that few, if any, of them operate at full capacity. Tr. 9/8, 45.2-18. As a whole, the defendants provide a broad array of community services such as emergency stabilization treatment; detoxification services; inpatient services; residential services; case management services; and crisis intervention services. Tr. 9/7, 21.15-23.7; Tr. 9/8, 45.19-46.23; 178.20-180.10. In fact, GPW has innovative pilot programs such as staff-intensive "independent settings" for high risk individuals. Tr. 9/8, 57.16-58.21; 106.2-6; Exhibit D-117 at 9. As to residential discharge options, GPW provides a broad array of discharge settings such as such as family homes, private [*27] apartments, assisted living facilities, and group living situations. Tr. 8/15, 58.3-5; 59.1-6; Tr. 9/8, 75.19-76.5; DOJ Exhibit 212 at Appendix D; DOJ Exhibit 333. There is typically a low number of patients awaiting discharge at GPW with an average wait of thirty to sixty days. Tr. 9/7, 72.1175.14. While some of the available discharge settings are not in the best locations or are not as clean as they should be, the totality of the evidence at trial showed that they are acceptable. Tr. 9/8, 107.18-109.3.
Discharge Planning and Needs Assessment
The defendants in this matter are providing appropriate planning for patient discharges and appropriate assessment of the needs of their patient population. As noted previously, a patient's individual treatment plan is usually developed shortly after admission to GPW, and this plan or "SIP" includes discharge planning. DOJ Exhibit 148 at 2. Discharge planning is reviewed and modified during "SIP updates" or modifications, and community case managers often participate in SIP meetings to discuss discharge planning. Tr. 9/8, 96.17-98.8. Furthermore, patient discharge skills (such as bathing, taking medication, etc.) are annotated on [*28] discharge planning forms such as the "7001 Form" and the "Interdisciplinary Discharge Summary" form. Tr. 9/8,83.17-85.23. As an additional element of discharge planning, the hospital attempts to involve family members in the patient discharge process for support and patient needs. Tr. 9/8, 85.25-87.18. Often, GPW's plan for discharge and placement is limited due to the fact that patients who are no longer involuntarily

In addition to efforts conducted at GPW, service providers in the relevant discharge communities determine patient needs based upon their specific involvement with the individuals that they serve and the individual needs that arise from those individual assessments. Tr. 9/7, 39.6-16. By operating under a decentralized organizational structure, each district [*29] is able to manage its community service system at a "grassroots level" which provides a program that is tailored to the individual needs of individual communities. Id.; DOJ Exhibit 80 at 5.
Standard of Professional Care
As to the provision of community mental health services, there are no generally accepted "norms" or "quantifiable standards" in the field. Tr. 8/17, 172.19-176.1. Instead, standards of professional care are based upon training, experience, judgment, and current peer reviewed literature in the field. Tr. 9/8, 32.18-33.13. In this case, all aspects of the defendants' provision of community services comply with accepted professional standards of care. Tr. 9/8, 81.25-82.21 (post-placement care); Tr. 9/8, 178.9-18 (discharge planning); Tr. 9/8, 107.18-109.3 (array of services); Tr. 9/8, 45.19-46.23; 178.15-180.10 (services fostering community integration); Tr. 9/8, 110.10-111.5 (community services as a whole).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. Summary of the Law
(A). Constitutional Claims
In Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 73 L. Ed. 2d 28, 102 S. Ct. 2452 (1982), the United States Supreme Court addressed the question of whether [*30] a person who is involuntarily committed to a state institution for the mentally retarded has substantive rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to (1) safe conditions of confinement; (2) freedom from bodily restraints; and (3) training or habilitation. See Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 309. Turning first to the issue of safe conditions of confinement, the Court in Youngberg found that an institutionalized patient has an obvious right to adequate food, shelter, clothing, and medical care. See id. at 315. Recognizing that a person's right to personal security is a "historic liberty interest", the Court found that

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24013, *30

Page 8 of 13

an institutionalized person also has a substantive due process right to safe conditions of confinement. See id. Similar to a patient's right to safe conditions of confinement, the Court in Youngberg also found that freedom from bodily restraint is recognized as a core liberty protected by the Due Process Clause. In light of the fact that the right to be free from bodily

3. A state may not restrain involuntarily committed residents except when and to the extent that professional judgment deems such restraint necessary to assure safety or to provide needed training, See id.;

restraints survives criminal conviction and incarceration, the court found that it must also survive involuntary commitment.

4. A state has a duty to provide such training as an appropriate professional would consider reasonable

With the aforementioned [*31] rights established, the Court in Youngberg went on to address the question of whether an involuntarily committed patient has a constitutional right to

to ensure a patient's safety and to facilitate a patient's ability to function free from bodily restraints, See id.; and

minimally adequate training or habilitation 4. In addressing

5. In determining whether a state has met its

this question, the Court began with the general principle that a

obligations under the Constitution, decisions made

state is under no constitutional duty to provide substantive

by appropriate professionals are entitled to a

services to those within its border. See id. at 317. However,

presumption of correctness, and liability may be

when a person is institutionalized and wholly dependant on

imposed only when a decision by a professional is

the state, the Court recognized that a duty to provide certain

such a substantial departure from accepted

services and care does exist. See id. In light of its recognition

professional judgment, practice, or standards as to

of a constitutionally protected right to be safe and to be free

demonstrate that the person responsible actually did

from bodily restraint, the Court in Youngberg held that a state

not base the decision [*34] on such a judgment, See

is required to provide involuntarily committed patients

id..

minimally adequate or reasonable training to ensure safety

and to ensure freedom from undue restraint. See id. at 319. Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Youngberg, the

With these obligations stated, however, the Court went on to former Fifth Circuit held that civilly committed mental

note that the question is not simply whether a liberty interest patients have a constitutional right to individual treatment that

has been infringed, but whether the extent or nature of the will afford them a reasonable opportunity to be cured or to

restraint or lack of safety is such as to violate due process. improve their mental condition. See Donaldson v. O'Conner,

Thus, in determining [*32] whether or not a constitutional 493 F.2d 507, 520 (5th Cir. 1974)(vacated on other grounds);

violation has taken place, a court must determine whether a Wyatt v. Aderholt, 503 F.2d 1305, 1312 (5th Cir. 1974). In

state exercised professional judgment in a decision related to reaching this holding, the Fifth Circuit reasoned that "the only

constitutionally protected rights. See id. at 322. In evaluating permissible justifications for civil commitment and for the professional judgment, a court must show deference to the massive abridgments of constitutionally protected liberties it judgment of qualified professionals, and decisions made by entails [are] the danger posed by the individual committed to

such professionals are presumptively valid. See id. at 323. "It himself or to others, or the individual's need for treatment and

is not appropriate for the courts to specify which of several care. Aderholt, 503 F.2d at 1312. Given this fact, the prior

professionally acceptable choices should have been made." Id. Fifth Circuit found that "if the purpose of the commitment is

at 321. Rather, "liability may be imposed only when [a] to secure treatment, the state violates due process if it does

decision by [a] professional is such a substantial departure not, in fact, provide treatment." Id. Subsequent to the from accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards as Supreme Court's opinion in Youngberg, the Eleventh Circuit

to demonstrate that the person responsible actually did not recognized that the Fifth Circuit's holdings in Aderholt

base the decision on such a judgment." Id. at 323.

and [*35] Donaldson were not addressed in Youngberg. See

D.W. v. Rogers, 113 F.3d 1214, 1218 (11th Cir. 1997).

In summary, [*33] the Court's decision in Youngberg is as Therefore, it appears that the Fifth Circuit's holdings in

follows:

Aderholt and Donaldson are still binding precedent within the

Eleventh Circuit. See Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d

1. A state has a duty to provide involuntarily 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981).

committed patients adequate food, shelter, clothing,

and medical care, See id. at 324;

In addition to the circuit-level opinions in Aderholt and Donaldson, at least one district court within this circuit has

2. A state has a duty to provide reasonable safety for

all residents and personnel within an institution, See

id.;

4 The Supreme Court defined this term as "training and development of needed skills. Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 317.

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24013, *35

Page 9 of 13

found that the right to training and habilitation set forth in plaintiffs would be inequitable, given the responsibility the

Youngberg includes the right to such training as is necessary State has undertaken for the care [*38] and treatment of a

to prevent institutionalized patients' basic self-care skills from large and diverse population of persons with mental

deteriorating. See Armstead v. Pingree, 629 F. Supp. 273, 276 disabilities." Id. at 2189. By way of example, a plurality of

(M.D. Fla. 1986).

the Court in Olmstead went on to state that:

(B). ADA Claims
Title II of the ADA applies to public services that are furnished by governmental entities. Specifically, 42 U.S.C. § 12132 states that:
Subject to the provisions of this subchapter, no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of [*36] a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity. 5
In Olmstead v. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581, 119 S. Ct. 2176, 144 L. Ed. 2d 540 (1999), the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether Title II of the ADA requires placement of persons with mental disabilities in community [*37] settings rather than in institutions. See Olmstead, 119 S. Ct. at 2181. Answering this question with a "qualified yes" , the Court in Olmstead held that:
Such an action is in order when the State's treatment professionals have determined that community placement is appropriate, the transfer from institutional care to a less restrictive setting is not opposed by the affected individual, and the placement can be reasonably accommodated, taking into account the resources available to the State and the needs of others with disabilities.Id. However, the Court in Olmstead expounded on its holding by stating that a state's responsibility to provide community-based treatment to qualified persons with disabilities is not boundless. See id. at 2188. The Court noted that a state can resist modifications that entail a "fundamental alteration" of the state's services and programs. See id. In other words, "the fundamental-alteration component . . . would allow the State to show that, in the allocation of available resources, immediate relief for the

If, for example, the State were to demonstrate that it had a comprehensive, effectively working plan for placing qualified persons with mental disabilities in less restrictive settings, and a waiting list that moved at a reasonable pace not controlled by the State's endeavors to keep its institutions fully populated, the reasonable-modifications standard would be met.
Id.
II. The Law Applied to the Facts of This Case
(A). Constitutional Claims
(i). Reasonable Care and Safety
In this case, the plaintiffs have three "constitutional claims" that can be divided into various sub-parts. The first constitutional claim raised by the plaintiffs pertains to the provision of reasonable care and safety to the patients at GPW. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that the patients at GPW are inadequately supervised; inadequately treated for self-injurious behavior; inadequately protected from environmental hazards; and that adverse incidents are inadequately investigated and/or [*39] responded to.
Inadequate Supervision
The plaintiffs contend that GPW fails to provide a sufficient number of adequately trained staff to provide patients with adequate supervision and safety in a therapeutic environment. However, the evidence at trial shows that GPW is adequately staffed with trained employees who provide adequate supervision and safety as mandated by the Supreme Court's holding in Youngberg that a the State must provide reasonable safety for all residents. See, e.g, Tr. 8/30, 115.1724; Tr. 8/30, 115.25-116.5; Tr. 8/30, 37, 39, and 59; Tr. 8/30, 45-46. While it is true that in any psychiatric hospital, a larger number of trained staff would always be ideal, the staffing

5 The Court sua sponte takes note of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 148 L. Ed. 2d 866, 121 S. Ct. 955 (2001), as that opinion relates to claims against state actors for money damages under the ADA. In this case, the defendants have raised an Eleventh Amendment immunity defense to the ADA claims against it. This Court, however, need not address what effect, if any, the Garrett opinion would have on the ADA claims in this case in light of the fact that the Court finds that the defendants have not violated the ADA. Therefore, any Eleventh Amendment defense offered by the defendants is rendered moot.

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24013, *39

Page 10 of 13

at GPW provides reasonable care and safety and complies to adverse incidents at the hospital. Despite these allegations,

with accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards. however, the evidence [*42] at trial showed that GPW has an

See Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 323.

effective plan in place for the investigation of adverse events.

Treatment for Self-Injurious or Assaultive Behavior

See, e.g., Tr. 9/5, 244.10-246.4; Tr. 9/6, 93.14-24; Tr. 8/28, 168.3-18; Tr. 9/6, 92.24-93.24; Tr. 9/6, 66.2-15; 99.8-100.14;

The next sub-claim under the major claim of reasonable care and safety is that GPW provides inadequate treatment for selfinjurious or assaultive behavior. The crux of this sub-claim is that GPW does not modify treatment plans and/or perform suicide assessments [*40] to address behaviors and problems that result in harm to patients. However, the evidence at trial showed that GPW exercises professional judgment in its treatment of self-injurious or assaultive behavior, and that the treatment complies with accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards. See, e.g., Tr. 8/23, 187.10-213.12; Exhibit D-122 at 25-26; Exhibit D-65; Tr. 8/30, 133.17-22; Case of Tonya W., Exhibit D-122 at 48-50; Tr. 8/24, 10.3-

Tr. 9/5, 173.25-174.21; 216.23-217.17; Tr. 9/6, 116.4-22; Tr. 9/6, 105.16-108.11; Tr. 9/6, 35-64; Tr. 9/6, 114.20-115.2, 111.7-19; Tr. 9/6, 91.11-92.2; 94.8-95.3; Tr. 9/6, 39.1-40.20; 9/6, 38.12-25; Tr. 9/6, 42.21-44.23; Tr. 9/6, 50.22-54.7; Tr. 9/6, 57.12-59.2; Exhibit D-65. Additionally, the evidence at trial showed that GPW investigates and responds to reports of adverse incidents and implements procedures to correct and/or prevent future problems. See id. In other words, GPW's investigations and responses to adverse incidents at the hospital are based on professional judgment and comply with accepted professional practice and standards. Tr. 8/23, 39.4-40.15; Tr. 8/23, 36.6-36.9, 37.23-24; Tr. 9/6, 35-64.

13.11; Case of Paul B., Exhibit D-122 at 25-26; Tr. 8/23, (ii). Failure to Provide Adequate Treatment 187.10-213.12; Tr. 8/30, 123.9-124.9, Case of Rodney S.,

DOJ Exhibit 182A at 6-7. While some patients at GPW have The next constitutional claim asserted by the plaintiffs is that

committed suicide or harmed themselves or others, the the patients at GPW do not receive adequate treatment. The

evidence at trial shows that GPW has provided adequate sub-claims under this main claim are inadequate assessment

treatment for self-injurious or assaultive behavior. See, e.g, of patients; inadequate [*43] treatment planning; inadequate

Exhibit D-24; Tr. 8/31, 148.2-151.15, 154.24-155.10. Case of provision of active treatment; and inadequate discharge

Leon G., Tr. 8/30, 204.6-205.19; Tr. 8/24, 87.10-90.14; 91.1- planning.

5. Patient Assessment

Protection from Environmental Hazards

Turning first to the sub-claim of inadequate assessment of

The third claim under reasonable care and safety is that GPW patients, the plaintiffs contend that patient assessments at

fails to protect its patients from environmental hazards such GPW fail to determine realistic rehabilitative goals and the

as illegal drugs and "hanging hazards." At trial, however, the appropriate treatment interventions needed to attain those

evidence showed that GPW is exercising [*41] professional goals. Contrary to these allegations, however, the evidence at

judgment in protecting its patients from environmental trial shows that GPW's clinical assessments of patients are

hazards, and GPW's handling of environmental hazards based on professional judgment and comply with accepted

complies with accepted professional judgment, practice, or professional judgment, practice, or standards. See Youngberg,

standards. See, e.g., Tr. 8/31, 160.12-164.3; Tr. 8/28, 156.12- 457 U.S. 323, 73 L. Ed. 2d 28, 102 S. Ct. 2452; Tr. 8/31,

159.8; Exhibit D-120 at 62-64; Tr. 9/5, 165.19-22; 167.8- 87.1-89.25; Tr. 8/31, 89.13-91.11; Tr. 8/31, 99.17-100.7;

169.6; Tr. 9/5, 170.17-171.10; Tr. 9/6, 117.7-119.18; Tr. 8/28, 207.6-15; Tr. 8/25, 88.19-90.3; Tr. 8/31, 96.10-98.20; Exhibit

163.8-164.18; Tr. 8/30, 57; Tr. 8/8, 155.14-157.14; Tr. 9/5, D-26; Tr. 8/31, 139.13-24.

181.18-183.24. As noted by the Supreme Court in Youngberg, an institution cannot protect its residents from all danger if it Treatment Planning

is to permit them to have any freedom. See Youngberg, 457 U.S. 320, 73 L. Ed. 2d 28, 102 S. Ct. 2452. Thus, while the evidence shows that environmental conditions at GPW could be improved, GPW utilizes professional judgment and adequately protects its patients from environmental hazards. Tr. 8/23, 39.4-40.15; Tr. 8/23, 36.6-36.9, 37.23-24; Tr. 8/28, 164.19-24.

Moving to the plaintiffs' sub-claim for inadequate treatment planning, the plaintiffs state that patients at GPW are provided ad hoc and inconsistent treatment activities that often bear only an incidental relationship to their therapeutic needs and goals. However, the evidence at trial shows that treatment planning at GPW is based on professional [*44] judgment that comports with accepted professional judgment, practice,

Investigation and Response to Adverse Incidents

or standards. See, e.g., Tr. 8/23, 107.12-18; Tr. 8/23, 187.10213.12; Tr. 8/23,

As a final sub-claim under reasonable care and safety, the

plaintiffs claim that GPW fails to investigate and respond

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24013, *44

Page 11 of 13

138.24-144.6; Tr. 8/24, 10.3-13.11; Tr. 8/24, 140.2-7; 140.1115; Exhibit D-135; Tr. 8/24, 147.1-18; 149.20-25; 150.3-17; Exhibit D-123 at 8-16; Tr. 8/24, 93.16-22. While it is true that the expert opinions at trial varied as to what treatment is best for any given patient, it is not appropriate for the Court to choose which of several professionally acceptable treatment planning choices should have been made. Treatment planning at GPW is based on professional judgment that comports with accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards. See Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 321; Tr. 8/24, 93.2-93.7.

The final constitutional claim raised by the plaintiffs is that the defendants are violating the Constitution in the provision of community mental health services to present and former GPW patients. More specifically, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants are not providing adequate community services to meet the assessed functional and clinical needs of current and former GPW patients, nor are they providing such services in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of those patients. At trial, however, the evidence did not support the plaintiffs' aforementioned [*47] constitutional claims. In fact,

Provision of Treatment and Treatment Programing

the evidence at trial showed that the defendants' provision of

Much like their sub-claim for treatment planning, the plaintiffs also claim that the provision of active treatment at GPW is inadequate. Once again, however, the evidence at trial shows that treatment at GPW is based on professional judgment that comports with accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards. See, e.g., Tr. 8/24, 78.5-16; Exhibit D123 at [*45] 60; Tr. 8/28, 72.25-79.22; Tr. 8/31, 103.4-104.8; Tr. 8/25, 76.2-19; Tr. 8/25, 79.5-80.21; Tr. 8/29, 137.24140.24; Tr. 8/25, 78.2-22; Tr. 8/25, 83.19-85.5; Tr. 8/29, 236.1-237.16; Exhibit D-47; Tr. 8/29, 242.14-243.12; 245.620; Exhibit D-114 at 11-12; Tr. 8/25, 124.1-125.14; 126.7128.2; Exhibit D-114 at 14-20; Tr. 8/31, 218.10-17. Furthermore, the evidence at trial shows that treatment at GPW reasonably ensures patient safety and facilitates the patients' ability to function free from bodily restraints; prevents patients' basic self-care skills from deteriorating; and affords patients a reasonable opportunity to be cured or to improve their mental condition. See id.; Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 324; Donaldson, 493 F.2d at 520; Aderholt, 503 F.2d at 1312; Armstead, 629 F. Supp. at 276.

community services is based on professional judgment that comports with accepted professional practice and standards. See, e.g, Tr. 9/8, 45.2-18; Tr. 9/7, 21.15-23.7; Tr. 9/8, 45.1946.23; 178.15-180.10; Tr. 9/8, 57.16-58.21; 106.2-6; Exhibit D-117 at 9; Tr. 8/15, 58.3-5; 59.1-6; Tr. 9/8, 75.19-76.5; DOJ Exhibit 212 at Appendix D; DOJ Exhibit 333; Tr. 9/7, 72.1175.14. Furthermore, no evidence at trial suggested that the provision of community services to current and former GPW patients was not taking place in the most integrated setting appropriate for the needs of those patients. While the testimony of some witnesses was that some GPW patients do not receive community services in the best of settings, this fact alone does not constitute a constitutional violation. The law requires that community services must comply with accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards, and does not require that community services be provided in the best conceivable setting possible. Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 323. Similarly, the testimony at trial showed that some of GPW's community [*48] patients, at times, end up in less than desirable circumstances after their discharge. While this anecdotal evidence is sad and unfortunate, it does not prove a

Discharge Planning

constitutional violation due to the fact that it does not show that professional judgment, practice, or standards are not

As a final sub-claim under failure to provide adequate treatment, the plaintiffs argue that discharge planning at GPW is inadequate. At trial, however, the evidence showed that GPW has an ongoing system for discharge planning that is based on professional judgment that comports with accepted professional practice [*46] and standards. DOJ Exhibit 148 at 2; Tr. 9/8, 96.17-98.8; Tr. 9/8,83.17-85.23; Tr. 9/8, 85.25-

being complied with. See id. In fact, substantial evidence at trial showed that patients in the community often end up in unfortunate situations due to factors that are beyond the defendants' control. See, e.g., Tr. 8/15, 15.17-17.17 (patient recidivism); Tr. 9/8, 90.15-96.15 (conclusion of involuntary commitment status/loss of patient cooperation); Tr. 9/8, 90.15-96.15 (criminal conduct by patients).

87.18; Tr. 9/8, 93.24-96.15; Tr. 9/8, 69.2-70.25; Exhibit D- (B). Claims Under the ADA 117 at 11-13; Tr. 9/8, 81.25-82.9; Tr. 9/8, 81.25-82.21; 178.9-

18. While the testimony at trial showed that every aspect of every patient's discharge plan was not always formally recorded in a set series of documents, the evidence also showed that GPW's discharge planning system is based on professional judgment that complies with accepted professional practice and standards. Tr. 9/8, 81.25-82.21; 178.9-18.

In addition to their constitutional claims, the plaintiffs also contend that the defendants are violating the ADA by failing to make reasonable modifications necessary to provide mental health services in the most integrated setting appropriate for patient needs. According to the plaintiffs, the ADA demands that mental health services be provided in community settings to the extent that such a

(iii). Provision of Community Health Services

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24013, *48

Page 12 of 13

setting is consistent with patient needs. See United States' and unnecessary isolation of [*51] patients into segregated

Plaintiffs' [*49] Post-Trial Memorandum of Law at 14. As settings. Specifically, the plaintiffs claim that the alleged

noted previously, the crux of the plaintiffs' ADA claim is that segregation of patients stems from the defendants' (1) failure

the defendants are failing to reasonably modify their programs to provide an appropriate array and intensity of community

in light of the fact that they are failing to provide mental services; (2) failure to plan for patient discharges; (3) failure

health services in the most integrated setting appropriate to to assess the needs of the patient population; and (4) failure to

patient needs. While the lion's share of the plaintiffs' properly manage their resources and system accountability.

arguments focuses on the modifications that the defendants Much like the similar claims made by the plaintiffs in their

could make to comply with the ADA, the underlying premise constitutional counts, however, the evidence at trial does not

of the plaintiffs' ADA claim is faulty. Specifically, the substantiate any of the alleged segregation claims. See supra,

evidence at trial did not show that the defendants were failing Part II(A); See also, Tr. 8/15, 58.3-5; 59.1-6; Tr. 9/8, 75.19-

to administer GPW's mental health program in the most 76.5; Tr. 8/10, 83.5-84.5; Tr. 8/15, 84.3-85.6; Tr. 8/15, 52.24-

integrated setting appropriate to the needs of current and 53.7; Tr. 9/5, 148.17-149.14; Tr. 8/17, 183.19-22; Tr. 8/15,

former GPW patients. See, e.g, Tr. 9/8, 45.2-18; Tr. 9/7, 55.13-56.8; DOJ Exhibit 212, Appendix D; DOJ Exhibit 333.

21.15-23.7; Tr. 9/8, 45.19-46.23; 178.15-180.10; Tr. 9/8, As a general matter, the evidence at trial did not show that the

57.16-58.21; 106.2-6; Exhibit D-117 at 9; Tr. 8/15, 58.3-5; defendants' mental health program, as administered, results in

59.1-6; Tr. 9/8, 75.19-76.5; DOJ Exhibit 212 at Appendix D; unnecessary isolation of patients into segregated settings. See

DOJ Exhibit 333; Tr. 9/7, 72.11-75.14. In other words, while Tr. 9/6, 199.13-15; 202.17-201.25; Exhibit D-146A at §

the plaintiffs' ADA claims focus on what modifications the 394.453; Tr. 9/7, 21.15-23.7; Tr. 9/7, 33.18-23; DOJ Exhibit

defendants could make to improve their mental health 71; Exhibit D-100 at i-iii. Notwithstanding the [*52] four

program, their evidence at trial failed to prove that the reasons offered by the plaintiffs as to why patients are

defendants are in fact violating [*50] the ADA.

unnecessarily isolated into segregated settings, the evidence at

trial failed to show that patients are in fact isolated into

As noted above, the United States Supreme Court in the segregated settings. Additionally, an examination of each of

Olmstead decision held that:

the four alleged problems offered by the plaintiffs, in light of

the evidence presented at trial, shows that the defendants are

[Title II of the ADA requires placement of persons not unnecessarily subjecting patients to isolated segregation.

with mental disabilities in community settings rather

than in institutions] when the State's treatment As to the array and intensity of community settings provided

professionals have determined that community by the defendants, the plaintiffs have offered ample evidence

placement is appropriate, the transfer from at trial to show that different community services could be

institutional care to a less restrictive setting is not offered by the defendants. The plaintiffs have also presented

opposed by the affected individual, and the evidence that the community services offered by the

placement can be reasonably accommodated, taking defendants could be better, broader and more intense. Despite

into account the resources available to the State and these facts, however, the plaintiffs have failed to show that the

the needs of others with disabilitiesOlmstead, 119 S. community services provided by the defendants are

Ct. at 2181. With this holding in mind, the evidence inadequate to the point that they result in unnecessary isolated

at trial did not prove that the defendants are failing to segregation in violation of the ADA. See, e.g., Tr. 9/8, 45.2-

place individuals in an appropriate community 18; Tr. 9/7, 21.15-23.7; Tr. 9/8, 45.19-46.23; 178.15-180.10;

treatment setting when relevant treatment Tr. 9/8, 57.16-58.21; 106.2-6; Exhibit D-117 at 9; Tr. 8/15,

professionals have determined that community 58.3-5; 59.1-6; Tr. 9/8, 75.19-76.5; [*53] DOJ Exhibit 212 at

placement is appropriate. See supra, Part II(A)(iii). Appendix D; DOJ Exhibit 333; Tr. 9/7, 72.11-75.14.

Given this fact, the plaintiffs have failed to show any violation of the ADA as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Olmstead.

As to discharge planning and patient needs assessments, the Court's previous discussion of these topics under the plaintiffs' constitutional claims is also relevant here. 6 The

Additionally, the plaintiffs' contend that the defendants' evidence at trial showed that discharge planning and patient

mental health program, as administered, results in

needs assessment at GPW are not done in violation

6 In fact, the plaintiffs themselves note the similarity between the arguments made in their constitutional claims and those made in their ADA segregation claims. See United States' and Plaintiffs' Post-Trial Memorandum of Law at 19.

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24013, *53

Page 13 of 13

of the ADA See, DOJ Exhibit 148 at 2.; Tr. 9/8, 96.17-98.8; Additionally, the plaintiffs have failed to prove inadequate

Tr. 9/8,83.17-85.23; Tr. 9/8, 85.25-87.18; Tr. 9/8, 93.24- assessment of patients; [*55] inadequate treatment planning;

96.15; Tr. 9/8, 69.2-70.25; Exhibit D-117 at 11-13; Tr. 9/8, inadequate provision of active treatment; or inadequate

81.25-82.9; Tr. 9/7, 39.6-16.DOJ Exhibit 80 at 5.

discharge planning. As to community services, the plaintiffs

have failed to prove that the defendants are not providing

Finally, the defendants' resource management and system adequate community services to meet the assessed functional accountability as it relates to compliance with the ADA is and clinical needs of current and former GPW patients, nor

irrelevant since no violation of the ADA has been proven. have they proven that the defendants are not providing such

Having made the preceding [*54] finding that the defendants services in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs are not violating the ADA, it is unnecessary for the Court to of patients.

examine whether the proposed modifications offered by the

plaintiffs are reasonable and/or are fundamental alterations to Likewise, the plaintiffs have failed to prove a violation of the

the defendants' mental health program. In other words, there ADA. Again, while the plaintiffs offered evidence that

is no need for the Court to consider what program community services and facilities could be different and in

modifications would bring the defendants into compliance some instances better, they have failed to prove that the

with the ADA given the fact that the Court has found that the defendants' mental health program, as administered, results in

defendants are not violating the ADA.

unnecessary isolation of patients into segregated settings.

In this trial, the burden of proof was on the plaintiffs to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendants are violating the statutory and constitutional rights of current and former GPW patients. They have not done so. While the plaintiffs have offered evidence that mistakes have been made and that conditions and programs could be different or in some cases better, they have failed to prove that the patients at GPW are inadequately supervised; inadequately treated for self-injurious behavior; inadequately protected from environmental hazards; or that adverse incidents are inadequately investigated and/or responded to.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Clerk shall enter final judgment in this matter in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs and plaintiffintervenor in this matter on all claims raised and tried in Case No. 8:87-Civ-369-T-24TBM during the weeks of August 7, 2000 through September 8, 2000.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, this [*56] 28th day of June, 2001.
SUSAN C. BUCKLEW

United States District Judge

 
 Memorandum

Johnson & U S v Florida
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

LK:AEP:WGM:TED:KW:drb DJ 168-18-36

MH-FL 001-001

Subject
Proposed CRIPA Investigation Landmark Learning Center Opa-Locka, Florida and G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital,
a . VI nri Ha

Date
March 23, 1995

Deval L. Patrick Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division

—/omArthur E. Peabody, Jr. '¥ Chief
t * Special Litigation Section

INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act ("CRIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1997 et. sea. . we recommend that the Department initiate an investigation into the conditions of confinement at the Landmark Learning Center ("Landmark"), previously known as Sunland Training Center, in Opa-Locka, Florida, and G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital ("Pierce") in Arcadia, Florida. 1/ Landmark is a state-operated institution housing approximately 300 developmentally disabled adults and children. Pierce is a state-operated institution housing approximately 445 mentally ill adults on both a short and long term basis.

Residents of state operated facilities for the developmentally disabled and mentally retarded have a fundamental Fourteenth Amendment due process right to reasonable safety, adequate medical care and training. Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982). Such training must be sufficient to protect each resident's liberty interests and permit each resident an opportunity to function as independently as their individual

1/ Pierce is the subject of a 1989 consent decree filed in Johnson v. Bradley, C.A. No. 87-369 (M.D. Fla. 6/1/89) and of a monitor who ostensively evaluates compliance from time to time. Plaintiffs are represented by James K. Green, sole practitioner without adequate resources to address the multitude of compliance issues. State defendants have filed a series of motions to dismiss, motions to dismiss the monitor and other motions to terminate the case.
Conditions at Pierce, as described in the text, are especially egregious -- suicide by hanging, an unobserved patient cuts off both hands, and three patients die in a single week. In view of the protracted violations and the apparent inability of plaintiffs' lawyer to address these problems alone, our involvement is warranted. Obviously, compliance in Bradley has not been achieved and Mr. Green welcomes our participation.

- 2-
handicapping conditions permit. See, e.g., Thomas S. by Brooks v. Flaherty. 699 F. Supp. 1178 (W.D. N.C. 1988); United States v. Tennessee. No. 92-2062, slip op. at 12 (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 17, 1994); Halderman v. Pennhurst State School & Hospital, No. 741345, slip op. (E.D. Pa. March 29, 1994). See also 42 C.F.R. § 483.440.
We have obtained information that indicates residents of Landmark and Pierce are being harmed and exposed to unreasonable risks of harm in violation of their constitutional and statutory rights. 2./ Alleged unconstitutional violations include the following: abuse and neglect of residents, inadequate medical and psychiatric care, and failure to provide residents with adequate training programs. See Youngberg v. Romeo. 457 U.S. 307 (1982). In addition, Landmark and Pierce are institutions that unduly segregate their residents from the rest of society solely on the basis of their disabilities. As a result, these facilities are failing to provide services to their residents in the least separate, most integrated setting as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et. seq. , and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 et sea.
POSSIBLE VIOLATIONS
A. The State of Florida Fails to Provide Landmark and Pierce Residents with Services in the Least Separate. Most Integrated Setting.
Landmark and Pierce are isolated, self-contained institutional environments that separate their residents from the rest of society on the basis of their disabilities. As such, state officials are subjecting these individuals to conditions that violate the ADA and Section 504. Landmark and Pierce also inappropriately discriminate against a certain class of their residents by allowing a double standard of care for residents within the facilities. Landmark and Pierce have a number of unlicensed beds, i.e., beds that do not meet the federal regulatory standards enacted pursuant to the medicaid and medicare programs. The unlicensed beds at Landmark and Pierce do not meet these minimum standards of care set to safeguard the care and protection of residents in state facilities. The practical result of this distinction is to set a dual standard of care within the institution between those residents in licensed
2/ Conditions at Pierce were first brought to our attention by officials of the Health Care Financing Administration of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in a telephone call several months ago. This is highly unusual and suggests the gravity of the deficiencies at Pierce. This is the first such call of this kind within memory.

- 3-
beds protected by the standards set by licensing agencies and those in unlicensed beds for whom that protection is withheld. 3/ Such discrimination violates Section 504 and the ADA. In addition, at Pierce, Health Care Finance Administration ("HCFA") surveyors recently found that Pierce has inadequate nursing coverage for its licensed and unlicensed units and often pulls staff off the non-licensed units to cover nursing shortages in the licensed portion of the facility. 4./
The state has failed to provide Landmark residents with sufficient numbers of needed placements in a community setting. As a result, many Landmark residents who are suited for community placement continue to be isolated from the rest of society. Not only does the segregation violate the residents' statutory rights under Section 504 of the ADA, but the care and treatment afforded them in the institution does not rise to the level of care provided elsewhere in the community as required under the above statutes.
The state has also failed to provide Pierce residents with adequate mental health services in the community. 5/ Currently, Pierce houses between 50 and 100 residents who are suitable for immediate release into the community. 6/ Due to the lack of available community mental health services, residents continue to be segregated in a remote and isolated institution. The state's failure to provide services in the community violates Section 504 and the ADA.
3./ The Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services undertook a study of four Florida ICF/MR facilities, including Landmark, that showed that .... "dual levels of care exist between licensed and unlicensed units in all facilities since some therapies are not available to persons in unlicensed units. . . . Many of the individuals in unlicensed homes have severe behavioral problems or self injurious behavior." Unlicensed Beds In Developmental Services Institutions Study (Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services), 1994, at 2.
4./ Health Care Financing Administration ("HCFA") Survey Information on G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital (August 17-18, 1994) .
5/ A recent audit demonstrated that the community mental health services system fails to provide adequate clinical assessments, functional assessments, and treatment plans for its clients. Office of the Monitor, 1993 Joint Community Audit in Johnson v. Bradley.
6./ Telephone conversation with James K. Green, P.A., February 14, 19 95.

- 4-
B. The State Fails to Ensure that Landmark and Pierce Residents are Free from Abuse and Neglect.
A local advocacy group called the Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities published a report entitled the Landmark Learning Center Review ("The Review") that revealed rampant physical and mental abuse of Landmark residents. 2.1 Landmark has a history of abuse dating back to at least 1987. One such incident that occurred in 1993 involved a severely dysfunctional resident who died as a result of a blow to the abdomen. 8./ The resident had suffered a fifty (50) pound weight loss in the month-preceding his death. 9./ Landmark officials were unable to give a satisfactory explanation for the weight loss and death. 1J3/ In addition, a male resident died on November 18, 1991, at the hospital after experiencing severe internal bleeding. 1.1/ The resident broke his femur at 11:00 p.m. and was not brought to the hospital until 10:15 a.m. the next morning. 12./ H e died at around noon that same day. The attending doctor reported that the resident suffered from numerous bruises. 12./ Such incidents indicate that the treatment and care of the mentally retarded at Landmark is directly and adversely affected by untrained and abusive staff.
The examples listed above demonstrate a continued pattern of abuse and neglect. From 1989-1994, five (5) residents have died and three of those deaths occurred in one eight day time period. 14./ A Health Care Quality Assurance ("HCQA") team of the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services
l_l Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities, Landmark Learning Center Review, ("The Review"), 1992, at 6. Recent reports by the Advocacy Center indicate that conditions at Landmark have not- improved since The Review was released. Landmark Learning Center December 1993 Report.
8./ Jacquee Petchel, Unexplained Deaths Mount, Miami Herald, Nov. 23, 1993, at Al.
9_/ Telephone Conversation with Karen Curran, attorney for the resident's family, August, 1993.
10/ Id.
1JL/ Telephone Conversation with Mark Stokes, attorney for the resident's family, August 1993.
12/ Id.
11/ Id.
14/ Id.

- 5-
("HRS") conducted a special visit to Landmark following the three deaths in eight days. JL5./ The report stated:
[T]he overall findings of the team indicate that each
of the three deaths contained elements that could t>e
viewed as demonstrating deficiencies in the quality of care delivered by the facility. Each case involved a series of systematic, technical, and administrative problems that, when taken together, created an environment making it possible for the deaths to occur. 16/
In 1992, the Review reported high mortality rates at Landmark where seven (7) residents died in a five month period starting October 1991 through March 1992. 17/ In 1994, Chris Schuh, with the Association for Retarded Citizens ("ARC"), stated that " . . . the death rate now (at Landmark) has not decreased since 1991". 18/
Pierce also fails to protect its patients from harm. Last summer, three patients died within one week. A 73 year old patient died by choking on food on August 14, 1994. Prior to his death, this patient had experienced a choking episode in March 1994. Following a medical evaluation, the patient was placed on a pureed diet. On the day of his death, the patient was observed by staff stumbling and falling outside the on-unit dining room after the evening meal at 5:17 p.m. Resuscitation efforts proved unsuccessful and the patient was declared dead at 5:50 p.m. 19/
The autopsy revealed masses of small fragments of food material throughout the trachea and bronchial tree and food throughout the lungs including "fragments as large as grains of rice . . . . " 2.0./ The medical examiner listed the official cause of death as "acute cardiorespiratory failure due to
Id.
16/ Id.
17/ The Review, at 6.
18/ Telephone Conversation with Chris Schuh, Association for Retarded Citizens, September 19, 1994.
19/ HCFA Adjunct Survey Report (September 20, 1994) .
20/ Id.

- 6-
aspiration of food into the larynx and trachea due to accidental causes." 21/
Four days later, a 25 year old female patient died while on one to one suicide precaution watch. Hospital policy provides that the assigned staff person must document the patient's activities and location every 15 minutes. Upon review of hospital records, HCFA found that from 5:45 a.m. until the resident was found unresponsive on a sofa at 6:55 a.m., there were no entries documenting observations of the patient. 22/
In addition, HCFA found that no RN's were assigned to the patient's unit on 6 of the 21 shifts during the week of her death resulting in inadequate nursing coverage. During the actual shift on which the patient died, there was a nursing complement of 4 aides and .5 RN. Three of the 23 patients on the unit were on 1:1 suicide watch. Such nurse staffing left the .5 RN and 1 aide responsible for the remaining 20 patients. 23/
On August 20, 1994, a 26 year old male was found hanging from a tree outside by a fellow patient and two staff persons who were looking for him to give him his evening medication. 24/ The resident had a long history of command hallucinations telling him to kill himself and had frequently been on 1:1 suicide watch. In fact, he had been on suicide watch up until 2 days prior to his death. The progress notes for the day of his death begin only at the time the resident was found hanged. The HCFA report on this death called for a review of the indications for maintaining patients on a suicide watch when they exhibit serious suicidal tendencies. 25/
In July 1994, a male resident at Pierce seriously injured himself. The patient scaled, unobserved, a 12 foot tall chain link fence and gate topped with 3 strands of barbed wire and slid through an 18 inch gap in the ceiling of a garage which housed, among other items, a circular saw. He was found at 6:15 p.m. by a security guard who saw him standing in the window of the garage holding up both bloody arms with his hands missing. The hands were found palm up on the table. The staff did not realize the
21/ Id.
21/ Id.
23/ Id.
24/ Id.
25./ Id.

- 7—
resident was missing until he was noted absent for his 6:00 p.m. medication. 26/
C. The State Fails to Provide Landmark and Pierce Residents with Adequate Medical and Psychiatric Care.
Landmark fails to provide its residents with adequate medical and psychiatric care. Landmark still does not have the systems in place to safeguard residents against over-medication, inadequate review of psychotropic medication, use of gastrostomy tubes for the convenience of staff, and misdiagnoses of serious illnesses that can and have led to death. 2J7/ For example, a resident died of cancer without ever being treated for that disease while another resident died from an allergic reaction to a drug. Both incidents indicate lack of systemic, adequate and consistent care. 2.8/ Landmark also has the highest ratio of residents in a ICF/DD facility with gastrostomy tubes in the country, many of which were inserted for the convenience of the staff or due to lack of adequate staffing. 23.1 Monitoring of potentially harmful side effects of psychotropic medications with neurological testing and/or periodic review is sporadic. 30/
Pierce also fails to provide adequate psychiatric care to its residents. Progress notes must be recorded weekly for the first two months and at least once a month thereafter. The progress notes must contain recommendations for revisions in the treatment plan as indicated as well as precise assessments of the patient's progress in accordance with the original or revised treatment plan. 3_l/ HCFA surveyors found that the psychiatrist at Pierce failed to record progress notes in a timely manner for the first two months and thereafter. They also found that changes in medications, response to psychiatric treatments and changes in psychiatric treatment plans were not routinely
26/ HCFA Complaint Investigation Survey (August 18, 1994); Don Moore, Month Took Toll at GPW, DeSoto Sun Herald, August 30, 1994, at 1.
27/ Id.
28./ I d .
21/ Id.
30/ Id.
31/ HCFA Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction (August 18, 1994) at 2.

- 8-
documented by progress notes in all cases. .32./ In addition, HCFA indicated that it is not clear whether the psychiatrist, who is responsible for 53 residents, is involved in the on-going care of every patient on the unit surveyed. 33/
D. The State Fails to Provide Landmark Residents with an Adequately Safe Living Environment.
Landmark's physical environment also impacts the health of the residents. The Health Care Financing Administration ("HCFA") found in August, 1992, that deficiencies in the kitchen areas included freezers and refrigerators that did not meet temperatures considered safe for the maintenance of food items, outdated food and rusty can openers, and numerous unsanitary and unsafe conditions. 3_4/ In June, 1993, HCFA again found the same deficiencies with regard to equipment and food. HCFA further found dirty food delivery containers, containers of uncovered rancid grease, rusting and peeling metal on ice machines, rotting boxes with nearby rodent excrement, leaking roof tiles that had allowed water to leak onto sugar that was currently being used and two large, dirty garbage containers of wilted lettuce intended for resident consumption. 3_5/ In December, 1993, the Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities found the following:
[C]onditions in the kitchen were unsanitary . . . . [F]ood was observed falling on the floor and staff picking it up and placing it back on the serving trays. There was no attempt to keep food covered, and many flies were observed on the food. Furthermore, LLC is still using the meal trays and styrofoam take out boxes which were cited as problems in the November/December 1992 review of LLC Administration and Management structure by HRS.
32/ Id.
33/ HCFA Survey Information for G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital (August 17-18, 1994).
34/ Health Care Financing Agency Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction, June 12, 1992, 1-4.
35/ Health Care Financing Administration Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction, June 17, 1993, 1-10.

- 9-
He (Edward Dixon, Cafeteria Director) stated that the doors were kept open due to the heat, and that the flies, and at times 'bigger things', could not be avoided. When asked if he meant rats, he agreed. 36/
Environmental conditions of Landmark remain poor.
E. The State Fails to Provide Landmark and Pierce Residents With Adequate Programming and Treatment.
Landmark fails to provide training programs designed to meet the specific needs of individual residents and abate or eliminate self-injurious behaviors. The Advocacy Center reported negligible active treatment and "an unacceptable and astonishing number of residents who exhibit stereotypical and other institutional type behaviors." 3J7/ The Advocacy Center further stated that "the lack of behavioral programming remains a serious deficiency which has not been improved since 1992." 3_8/ Pre-vocational and other training programs are not well attended and are frequently cancelled. 3_9/ As a result, Landmark fails to prevent the regression and/or loss of skills of its residents.
Pierce also fails to provide adequate training programs to meet the specific needs of individual residents. Each patient must have a written treatment plan that includes short and long term goals. 4.0/ HCFA found that 13 of the 19 records it reviewed contained only short and long term goals for staff rather than measurable outcome goals for the patients. 4_1/ In addition, Pierce lacks adequate activities/training programs that promote optimal levels of the physical and psychosocial functioning. HCFA surveyors found the majority of residents
36/ Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities, Inc. Report, December, 1993, 2-3.
37/ "The Review", 1992, at 10.
38/ Advocacy Center for Persons With Disabilities Report, June 10, 1993, at 1.
39/ Advocacy Center for Persons With Disabilities Report, December, 1993 Report, at 1.
40/ HCFA Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction at 1.
41/ Id.

- 10 sit idly in day rooms or pace the halls. HCFA surveyors found the majority of residents either do not regularly attend programming or lack appropriate programs. 42/
CONCLUSION The information gathered thus far indicates that the inadequate conditions at Landmark and Pierce deprive residents of their constitutional and statutory rights. We therefore recommend that an investigation of Landmark and Pierce be instituted under our^CRIPA authority.
Approved: Disapproved: Comments:
42/ Id. at 4. In 1994, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) awarded Pierce accreditation subject to Type I Recommendations. Type I Recommendations refer to those compliance concerns found in a survey that an organization must resolve to retain accreditation. The Type I Recommendations issued to Pierce covered, among other things, treatment planning, patient management, life safety management, nursing policies and procedures, medical staff credentials, and staff orientation, training, and education. Letters from JCAHO to Max Schnier (October 21, 1994 & January 20, 1995).

 
 U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division

Office of the Assistant Attorney General

Wishington, D.C. 20035
Johnson & U.S. v. Florida

MH-FL-001-002 May 17, 1995

The Honorable Lawton Chiles Governor of Florida Governor's Office State Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001
Re: Landmark Learning Center and G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital
Dear Governor Chiles:
I am writing to inform you that the United States Department of Justice intends to investigate conditions at Landmark Learning Center and G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997 e_t sea.
The purpose of the investigation is to determine whether the above-mentioned facilities violate the constitutional rights of their residents. The investigation will focus specifically on allegations concerning abuse and neglect of residents, inadequate medical and psychiatric care, failure to provide residents with adequate training programs and failure to provide services to residents in the least separate, most integrated setting. Initiating this investigation does not evidence any prejudgment that the facilities violate the residents' constitutional rights. If any violations are found, however, we will confer with you and your staff concerning appropriate corrective actions.
We will endeavor to coordinate this investigation with relevant officials of your Department. Please feel free to contact our office if you desire to communicate on this matter.

- 2-
Please feel free to contact our office if you have any questions on this matter. The attorneys assigned to the case are William G. Maddox at (202) 514-6251 and Tawana E. Davis at (202) 514-6534.
Sincerely,
Deval L. Patrick Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
cc: Ms. Judith E. Heumann Assistant Secretary Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
Mr. Thomas Hehir Director Office of Special Education Programs
Judith A. Winston, Esquire General Counsel

Office of the Assistant Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division
Wishing/on. DC 20035

May 17, 1995
The Honorable Donna E. Shalala Secretary U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services 200 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20201
Re: Landmark Learning Center and G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital
Dear Madam Secretary:
I am writing to inform you that the United States Department of Justice intends to investigate conditions at the Landmark Learning Center and the G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997 e_t seq.
The purpose of the investigation is to determine whether the above mentioned facilities violate the constitutional rights of their residents. The investigation will focus specifically on allegations concerning abuse and neglect of residents, inadequate medical and psychiatric care, failure to provide residents with adequate training programs and failure to provide services to residents in the least separate, most integrated setting.

- 2-
Please feel free to contact our office if you have any questions on this matter. The attorneys assigned to the case are William G. Maddox at (202) 514-6251 and Tawana E. Davis at (202) 514-6534.
Sincerely,
Deval L. Patrick Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
cc: Harriet Raab, Esquire General Counsel
Mr. Bruce C. Vladeck, Ph.D. Administrator Health Care Financing Administration
Mr. Anthony J. Tirone Director Office of Survey & Certification Health Standards Quality Bureau
Mr. Dennis Hayashi Director Office of Civil Rights

Office of the Assistant Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division
Washington, D.C. 20035

May 17, 1995
The Honorable Richard R i l e y Secretary United States Department of
Education 600 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20202
Re: Landmark Learning Center and G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital
Dear Secretary Riley:
I am writing to inform you that the United States Department of Justice intends to investigate conditions at the Landmark Learning Center and the G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997 et seq.
The purpose of the investigation is to determine whether the above mentioned facilities violate the constitutional rights of their residents. The investigation will focus specifically on allegations concerning abuse and neglect of residents, inadequate medical and psychiatric care, failure to provide residents with adequate training programs and failure to provide services to residents in the least separate, most integrated setting.

- 2-
The attorneys assigned to this case are William G. Maddox at (202) 514-6251 and Tawana E. Davis at (202) 514-6534.
Sincerely^
---. DevalL. Patrick Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
cc: The Honorable Robert Butterworth Attorney General State of Florida
Dr. Charles Mahan Deputy Secretary Health and Rehabilitative Services
Department
Mr. Bob Ritz Superintendent Landmark Learning Center
Mr. Richard Bradley Director G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital
Kendall Coffey, Esquire United States Attorney Southern District of Florida
Charles R. Wilson, Esquire United States Attorney Middle District of Florida

 
 U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division

Office of the Assistant Attorney General
Johnson & U.S. v. Florida
i¿Mm • • " • ™ v ••• • • • • g g
MH-FL-001-003

Washington, D.C. 20530
Noveraber 9 1995

Honorable Lawton Chiles Governor of Florida Governor's Office The Capitol
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001
Re: G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital
Dear Governor Chiles: On May 17, 1995, we notified you, pursuant to the Civil
Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act ("CRIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 19 97, of our intent to investigate conditions at G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital ("G. Pierce Wood") in Arcadia, Florida. The purpose of this letter is to advise you of the constitutional and statutory violations ascertained during this investigation, the supporting facts, and recommended minimum remedial measures.
By way of background, after notifying you of our intent to investigate G. Pierce Wood, we sent counsel for the State a letter dated May 31, 1995 to advise the State of our desire to conduct an on-site inspection of the facility to assess and evaluate current conditions. We also requested that the State provide the Department with certain documents and information prior to the on-site inspection. Such inspections and requests for documents are a routine part of our CRIPA investigations.
In late July, the State provided us with "public records," only after the Department agreed to pay for copying and labor costs. When we inquired about the other information we had requested, counsel advised the Department that the State would neither provide further information nor grant access to the facility by our attorneys and expert consultants retained by the United States to assist in the conduct of this investigation until the Department provided the State with more specific information regarding the allegations it had received concerning G. Pierce Wood. Counsel also indicated that the State intended to depose a representative of the Department pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) to ascertain whether the Department had any

- 2-
evidence of possible violations of the Johnson v. Bradley consent decree.
In an effort to resolve this matter amicably, the Department offered to meet with Florida Assistant Attorney General Jason Vail. On September 15, 1995, Mr. Vail met with Deputy Assistant Attorney General Loretta King, and other members of my staff} who discussed the nature and purpose of our investigation. We g·lso discussed the nature of the allegations we have received about unlawful conditions at G. Pierce Wood and provided the State with a six page list of the allegations along with numerous newspaper reports and the August 1994 Health Care Financing Administration survey of the facility. Mr. Vail advised us that he lacked the authority to grant the Department access to the facility or to provide any additional documents. At our request, on September 19, 1995, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Loretta King and other members of my staff further discussed this matter in a telephone conference call with your General Counsel, W. Dexter Douglass, HRS General Counsel Kimberly Tucker, and Assistant Attorney General Vail. The State continued to deny the Department access to the facility and to additional documents and suggested that the Department's concerns should be addressed in the context of on-going litigation in Johnson v. Bradley, a private class action lawsuit involving G. Pierce Wood. On September 27, 1995, Mr. Vail advised us by letter that the State continued to deny the Department access to the facility and additional documents, and directed us, instead, to the John¡son v. Bradley lawsuit.
Over the last five months, we have endeavored to work cooperatively with the State and regret that the State has insisted that this matter be resolved only through litigation rather than through the non-adversarial method we have proposed repeatedly. Notwithstanding lack of access, we have gathered numerous facts from public documents provided by the State, including the August 1995 Inspector General's Report (hereinafter "IG report") on G. Pierce Wood, the September 5, 1995 G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital Review Team Report to the Florida Secretary of Health and Rehabilitative Services (hereinafter "Review Team Report") and information obtained from former patients and staff, advocates, concerned citizens, and newspaper articles which indicate that conditions at the facility deprive G. Pierce Wood patients of their constitutional rights and violate the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 e_t seq. and regulations promulgated pursuant to the ADA.
Patients of state operated psychiatric facilities have a fundamental Fourteenth Amendment due process right to reasonable safety and adequate medical care, including psychiatric services. Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982). Patients have a right to adequate psychiatric treatment which includes treatment programs designed to protect their liberty interests. Such

- 3-
treatment programs must be sufficient to permit each patient an opportunity to improve or be cured and to function as independently as their psychiatric conditions permit. See,fe.g. , Wyatt v. Sticknev, 325 F.Supp. 781, 784 (M.D. Ala. 1971). Such programs must provide opportunities for patients to acquire £nd maintain skills that will enable them to cope more effectively with the demands of their own person, their environment, and to raise-fe-helevel of their mental, behavioral, physical, and social efficiency. Gary W. v. Louisiana, 437 F. Supp. 1209, 1219 (E:.D. La. 197 6 ) ; see also, Thomas S. by Brooks v. Flaherty, 699 F.S. 1178 (W.D. N.C. 1988), aff'd. 902 F.2d 250 (4th Cir. 1990), pert. denied, Flaherty v. Thomas S. by Brooks, 498 U.S. 951 (1990):. Moreover, a state cannot constitutionally confine, without more, a nondangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely: in the community either independently or with assistance. 0'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563, 576 (1975). Federal statutes and regulations also create rights and place obligations on stat¡e institutions.
The numerous constitutional and statutory deficiencies which were previously summarized during our September 15, 1995 meeting with counsel for the State include the following:
I. G. Pierce Wood Has Failed to Protect Patients From Hanrt.
Based upon information we have received, we conclude that the lack of adequate staff supervision places patients at G. Pierce Wood at risk of significant harm and even death_.. In particular, our sources report and the IG report confirms that staff fail to properly supervise suicidal and self-injuriou$ patients, patients likely to elope, and patients at risk of choking at mealtimes.
A. Failure to Provide Adequate Special Precautions F¢>r Patients in Need of Supervision
The IG report and other information in the public domain reveals numerous instances in which G. Pierce Wood staff fail to adequately monitor patients requiring close supervision, including those patients who have a physician's order for one-toone supervision. For example, in August 1994 a twenty-five: year old female patient died while on one-to-one staffing. A physician had ordered one-to-one supervision because this patient had recently attempted suicide. According to hospital policy, an assigned staff person may not leave the patient unsupervised until replaced by another employee. The staff person is also responsible for documenting the patient's location and activities every 15 minutes. On the night of this patient's death, however, the assigned staff person left at the 11:00 p.m. shift change before the oncoming staff person arrived. The staff person: assigned to monitor the patient on the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a:.m. shift never took over the one-to-one watch. In addition,

_ 4 -
documentation on the precautions checklist revealed that the patient was not checked every fifteen minutes and "face check¦s" required at the beginning of each shift were not completed on! a timely basis. According to the IG report, the combination of! the failure to complete fifteen minute checks, failure to conduct! face checks in a timely fashion, and the failure of the staff! to take responsibility for one-to-one supervision resulted in th¦e patient's demise. When the patient was found, rigor mortis had already begun to set in.
In another incident, the IG report concluded that there was inadequate care and supervision of a patient who attempted suicide while on eye-to-eye contact precaution. Hospital pol¦icy requires a staff person assigned eye-to-eye contact to constajntly be in a situation to observe or see the resident at all times!. Inadequate supervision contributed to the near death of this patient because the staff person directly responsible for supervision did not maintain uninterrupted eye-to-eye contact! at all times. As a result, the patient was able to smuggle a shleet into the bathroom, lock the bathroom stall door, and attempt ¦to hang himself. Another patient on eye-to-eye precautions for suicidal behavior disappeared from the facility for more than nineteen hours before he was discovered walking nude along th¦e highway.
The IG report also found that¯*G. Pierce Wood staff failejd to adequately perform their special precautions responsibilities' which, in turn, enabled a patient to self-mutilate in eight incidents in 1994 . Those eight incidents included selfmutilation by a plastic comb and knife, glass from a framed picture, a coke can, and a razor blade. In all, the patient was involved in 43 reported self-injurious incidents that year with the majority of the incidents occurring while the patient was¦ on special precautions supervision. Nineteen incidents occurred while on one-to-one suicidal precautions, 10 occurred while ä>n two-to-one suicidal precautions, and one while on 15 minute precautions.
Another patient was found dead, slumped in a geri-tray ¢hair with her throat and chin on the chair's table top. Despite hospital policy classifying a geri-tray as a mechanical restraint necessitating one-to-one supervision, no staff person was assigned to monitor the patient on a one-to-one basis and th¢ patient was unsupervised at the time of death.
The Review Team Report also concluded that one-to-one assignments are problematic due to staffing shortages and th£ staff's lack of training and understanding of their roles ancfl. accountability. In sum, G. Pierce Wood's failure to ensure that staff monitor patients who need close supervision and that staff properly observe and document the patient's condition places

- 5-
patients at significant risk of serious injury and death and violates their constitutional rights.
B. Failure to Take Adequate Steps to Prevent Elopements
Our sources indicate that a significant number of patients have eloped from G. Pierce Wood in recent years. Some of these patients were later discovered dead. For example, in 1993, a male patient who suffered from delusions, amnesia, and physical handicaps eloped from the Hospital and was found dead a month later. His body was discovered leaning against a tree about a mile from Hospital grounds. The cause of death could not be! established. Despite the patient's history of eloping, he w¦as suddenly removed from elopement precautions and granted full! privileges only three days prior to his disappearance. The ;IG report reviewed this incident and concluded that G. Pierce Wood's policies on how to respond to an elopement are deficient.
Another male patient eloped from G. Pierce Wood several¦ times before finally eloping and committing suicide in an or¦ange grove near the facility. A female patient eloped from the facility and was later struck and killed by a car on the Pennsylvania Turnpike. A third patient, who was committed tjo G. Pierce Wood after having been found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity, escaped soon after she was sent to facility. She was later found in another state.
These incidents indicate that G. Pierce Wood fails to take adequate measures to prevent patients in need of supervision from eloping. As a result, a number of patients who pose a dang¢r to themselves and others have eloped over the years, several o£ whom were later found dead.
C. Failure to Monitor and Supervise Patients with Di‡tary Restrictions
Our sources report and the IG report confirms that G. Pierce Wood also fails to adequately monitor and supervise patients with dietary restrictions. In the last year, at least two patients who were restricted to a soft food diet choked to death at mealtime. The IG report concluded that the direct care staff's failure to provide adequate supervision and care contributed to the choking death of a patient during a noon meal as recently as July 1995.
The report based its findings on several facts. First!, the patient neither received his physician ordered mechanical soft diet tray nor was he offered any other food during the noonl meal. Records also indicated that the patient may not have eaten since the prior evening's meal, some nineteen hours earlier. Staff did not follow appropriate facility procedures to ensure that the patient received his proper meals. Second, the staff person

- 6-
responsible for supervising the patient was not aware of thijs assignment until after the patient's death. Staff responsible for supervising patients were not present at all times, therjeby allowing the patient to leave undetected and potentially obtain food elsewhere. Apparently, the patient had a history of wandering off to pick up food off the ground or take food from other patients.
This recent serious incident followed a similar incident in August 1994 when another patient on a pureed diet swallowed and choked on a piece of meat which was lodged in his airway. T!he IG report found that the staff person assigned to observe the patient for signs of choking on the day of his death was unaware of this responsibility. The report also found that G. Pierde Wood fails to ensure that patients with dietary restrictions receive the correct meals. For example, when this patient was inadvertently placed on a regular diet, the error went unnoticed by the treatment team for a period of nineteen days until it was discovered by a psychiatrist. The IG report found that stafff do not check pureed meals to ensure that they meet the consistency ordered by doctors. In fact, the inspectors found that purged meals contain discernible meat fragments, pieces of tomatoes, and rice.
According to the Review Team ^Report, the hospital administration ordered residents on mechanical soft and pureed diets to eat their meals in their residences in July 1995. When the review team recently toured G. Pierce Wood and observed residents with dietary restrictions eating in their residences, the team found patients eating standing up at the nursing station and sitting on couches with their trays on their laps. Due to overcrowding in day rooms and quiet rooms, staff were unable to properly observe patients' eating behaviors and monitor residents on choking precautions. Moreover, the Review Team found that staff did not know how to intervene properly when patients exhibited unsafe eating behaviors. The Review Team Report concluded that meals in the residences fail to provide an appropriate atmosphere for a therapeutic dining experience.
In sum, G. Pierce Wood's has failed to ensure that patients receive their correct meals in a timely manner, that staff follow physician ordered dietary restrictions and provide necessary supervision during mealtimes, and that staff complete the appropriate documentation. These deficiencies pose lifethreatening risks and violate the patients' constitutional rights.
D. Failure to Take Adequate Steps to Prevent Patient| Injuries
Reliable sources report that G. Pierce Wood fails to tqake adequate steps to keep patients from injuring each other.

- 7-
Patients continually commit acts of violence against each other. Patients have been raped and beaten by other patients. In addition, patients who are unable to protect themselves are placed in quarters with other patients whose propensity towards violence places them in danger. Moreover, patients who are HIV positive reportedly regularly engage in sexual activity with other patients. A number of other injuries at the facility apparently occur for unknown reasons because staff are not monitoring patients.
There appear to be a number of systemic problems at G. Pierce Wood that underscore the facility's failure to protect patients from harm. There are problems with adequate deployment and supervision of staff on the units, staff failing to perform required duties or sleeping on the job, staff lacking knowledge of facility policies and protocols, and staff failing to communicate important information about patients' conditions:at shift changes. In addition, there have been delays in investigations of significant incidents, retaliation and alleged disincentives for reporting staff abuse and neglect, and falsification of records. All of these serious deficiencies contribute to G. Pierce Woods's failure to ensure that patients are protected from harm, in violation of their constitutional rights.
II. G. Pierce Wood Has Failed to Provide Adequate Treatmentk
Our sources report that patients at G. Pierce Wood, are hot receiving adequate treatment. According to the Review Team Report, staff fail to develop treatment plans in accordance with the results of functional and clinical assessments. Treatment plans fail to integrate and track the progress of behavioral intervention programs. Some interventions are not being implemented. Treatment plans also fail to track medical issues noted in patient records.
Treatment teams fail to .develop and implement appropriate treatment plans and to review and revise them when necessary:, particularly when there is a change in a patient's status. As a result, treatment teams are unable to adequately respond whe‡i a patient's condition deteriorates. For example, the IG report found that despite the fact that a patient exhibited suicidal ideations just days before he killed himself, the patient remained in an unstructured program with full privileges. Another patient frustrated by delays in release from the hospital cut off both his hands with a circular saw. The Review Team! confirmed problems with treatment plan review and revision. `` For example, the Review Team Report documents instances in which! staff failed to revise the treatment plan or develop new interventions despite the identification of significant prob¦lems such as suicidal and homicidal statements and aggression.

- 8-
We have also received reports that patients are not properlydiagnosed and treatment plans do not adequately address dange!rous behaviors in which they engage. For example, some female patients regularly sell sex to other patients to obtain money for cigarettes. Although staff is aware of this conduct, patients are not counselled on their behavior. As noted earlier, the facility fails to provide adequate suicide precautions and to¡ respond to situations where patients are in danger of hurting themselves or others.
G. Pierce Wood also fails to provide adequate and appropriate activities/training programs to teach patients skills that enable them to function as independently as their psychiatric conditions permit. Many of the patients sit idly in day rooms or pace the halls and do not regularly attend programming. There are an insufficient number and array of therapeutic activities to meet patients' rehabilitative needs.
We have also received information that patient records Lack vital information that is essential for proper patient care. Treating psychiatrists fail to routinely record progress notes in the medical record in a timely manner. Medical records also lack documentation in such key areas as changes in medication, responses to psychiatric treatments, and changes in psychiatric treatment plans. Direct care staff^,.fail to recognize and document important behavior differences such as mood swings. Also, treatment plans lack measurable short- and long-term goals for patients. Treatment goals are set for the convenience of staff rather than to meet patient needs. Proper documentation is important to ensure consistency of treatment and to track a patient's progress toward cure and eventual discharge.
Reliable sources also indicate that mechanical and chemical restraints are used inappropriately and without necessary precautions and supervision. For some patients, drugs are th¡e only therapy they receive. There is not enough effort to provide alternative or supplementary therapeutic treatment.
In sum, treatment at G. Pierce Wood fails to comport with generally accepted professional standards. The absence of such treatment directly threatens the health and safety of patients, impairs their potential to improve or be cured, and violates their constitutional rights.
III. G. Pierce Wood Has Failed to Follow Accepted Medical Caiíe and Medication Practices.
Our sources report and the IG report confirms that G. Pierce Wood's fails to provide its patients with adequate medical care placing them at significant risk of life-threatening illness and death. For example, in July 1994, a patient died from an undiagnosed hernial condition. The Inspector General's medical

- 9-
consultant opined that an adequate physical examination the night before or the morning the patient died may have detected the hernial condition which caused his death.
The lack of adequate care at G. Pierce Wood is particularly evident in emergency situations. The IG report cited several medical emergencies in which the staff failed to utilize appropriate life saving techniques. When staff tried to revive the patient suffering from an undiagnosed hernial condition, complete life saving techniques were not utilized by the Codei Blue response team in that an intravenous infusion (IV) was njot started. In another emergency, the Code Blue response team was called twice and it did not arrive until five minutes after the initial call. When a patient was found choking to death in August 1994, staff did not commence basic life saving techniqjues until after the patient had been removed from the dining room. The paramedic who treated the patient who choked to death in July 1995 told IG inspectors that the physicians and the Code Blue response team at G. Pierce Wood need to be trained and certified in Advanced Cardiac Life Support and practice these skills on a regular basis to improve their proficiency in dealing with these types of emergencies.
We have also received reports that G. Pierce Wood fails .to follow accepted medication practices. Staff fail to coordinate the use of multiple psychotropic medications administered to patients. In the weeks before her death in August 1994, a patient was taking a combination of powerful psychotropic medications. The medical examiner was unable to rule out increased dosages as a contributing factor to her death. The same patient was given the wrong drug by mistake a few weeks before her death. We have received complaints from other sources about medication errors. In addition, staff are not adequately trained to detect and recognize drug side effects. Until recently, unlicensed staff were permitted to administer medication to patients.
The failure to provide adequate medical care, particularly in emergency situations, and to follow accepted medication practices places G. Pierce Wood patients at significant risk1of harm and violates their constitutional rights.
IV. G. Pierce Wood Has Failed to Provide Adequate Staffing.
We have received information that G. Pierce Wood lacks adequate number of psychiatrists, physicians, and nurses. According to the Review Team Report, only two of the six authorized positions for general health care physicians in the medical unit are currently filled. In addition, the deployment of direct care staff is not adequate to meet the needs of the patients. Without sufficient staff, the facility is unable to

- 10 -
provide patients with constitutionally required treatment, care and supervision.

V. G. Pierce Wood Has Failed to Provide Treatment in the Most Integrated Setting Appropriate to Patients' Needs.

Our sources report that a number of patients at G. Pierce Wood have been evaluated by facility professionals and determined to be ready for discharge to the community. These patients remain institutionalized because of an inadequate number of placements available in the community. As a result, discharge ready patients continue to be segregated from the rest of society. In other situations, patients have been discharged without appropriate discharge plans and have not received adequate aftercare services. The State's failure to implement professional judgments about the appropriate setting in which to serve patients and to provide adequate treatment in the most integrated setting appropriate to patients' needs violates the patients' constitutional rights and their rights under the ADA.

MINIMUM REMEDIAL MEASURES

The following remedial measures need to be implemented in order to meet constitutional and statutory requirements:

I. Protection from Harm

^*

G. Pierce Wood must identify patients who require one-to-one or close supervision and ensure that such supervision is provided. Patients who have dietary restrictions must receive appropriate meals in a timely manner and adequate supervision to ensure that they receive such meals. G. Pierce Wood must tajce adequate steps to identify, assess, and prevent patients who pose a danger to themselves and others from eloping and to respond appropriately when elopements occur. The facility must also: take adequate steps to protect patients from being victimized by other patients.

II. Treatment

G. Pierce Wood must evaluate, diagnose, and treat patients consistent with generally accepted professional standards. Patient treatment plans must be appropriate, coordinated, and properly managed. Such programs must allow each patient a reasonable opportunity to be cured, function as independently as possible, and cope as effectively as possible with his or he:r needs. Mechanical and chemical restraints may only be used 'in accordance with accepted professional standards. Patient records must contain essential information and properly document the! patient's course of care.

- 11 -
III. Medical Care and Medication Practices
G. Pierce Wood must provide adequate medical care, particularly in emergency situations. Staff must be properly trained and qualified to respond to medical emergencies. All use of drugs must be professionally justified, carefully monitored, documented, and reviewed.
IV. Staffing
G. Pierce Wood must retain and deploy adequate numbers of qualified professional and direct care staff to develop and implement treatment programs, to care for patients, and to provide appropriate supervision and adequate medical care.
V. Discharge Planning
G. Pierce Wood must appropriately assess each patient to determine which patients are appropriate for discharge. The facility must develop and implement adequate discharge planning, including appropriate community-based mental health services, to meet the needs of the patient upon discharge. In addition, the State must develop adequate quality assurance mechanisms to ensure the appropriateness of post-discharge services.
Pursuant to CRIPA, the Attorne¯ý General may move to intervene in a pending lawsuit to correct deficiencies at an institution fifteen days after appropriate officials are notified of them or may initiate an independent action after forty-nine days. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997c(b)(l), l997b(a)(l). Therefore, we anticipate hearing from you within fifteen days upon receipt of this letter with any response you may have to our findings. If you do not respond within the stated time period, we will consider intervening in the pending action Johnson v. Bradley or initiating our own action to remedy the conditions that violate patients' constitutional and federal statutory rights. In light of this case, we have served a copy of this letter on the appropriate federal court.
Finally, we note we did not have the benefit of the on-site review of institutional conditions contemplated by CRIPA priojr to determining these findings. Your own IG report, however, has substantiated many of the allegations we received. Consistent with the legislative history of CRIPA, we have been obliged to infer that many of the allegations we have received regarding; G. Pierce Wood are true in view of your failure to permit an inspection or provide requested documentation, and the findings of your IG report.

- 12 -
If you or any member of your staff have any questions, please feel free to contact Tawana Davis at (202) 514-6534 or Bill Maddox at (202) 514-6251.
Deval L. Patrick Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
CC : The Honorable Robert Butterworth Attorney General State of Florida
Jason Vail, Esquire Assistant Attorney General State of Florida
Mr. Myers Kurtz Director G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital
Charles R. Wilson, Esquire United States Attorney Middle District of Florida
The Honorable Susan C. Bucklew U.S. District Judge Middle District of Florida

 
 Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 1 of 146
CLOSED, MOTREF, TBM
U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida (Tampa) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 8:87−cv−00369−SCB

Johnson, et al v. Sellars, et al Assigned to: Judge Susan C Bucklew Demand: $0 Case in other court: 00−10695−B
00−12596− 00−12916−B 02−13499−D 02−14670D 95−3163 96−2422 99−13458−B 99−13458−B filed6/25/02 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act In Re Linda L. Glenn Office of the Monitor
In Re Dorothy J. Rowe Office of the Monitor
Plaintiff Miller Frank Johnson on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated

Date Filed: 03/11/1987 Date Terminated: 02/19/2010 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Michael J. Dale Nova University Shepard Broad Law Center 3305 College Ave Ft Lauderdale, FL 33314 954/262−6159 Fax: 954/262−3835 Email: dalem@nsu.law.nova.edu LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Francis Flynn NSU Law Center 3305 College Ave. Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33314 954/262−6173 Fax: 954−262−3835 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michael J. Dale (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Francis Flynn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christine Elizabeth Larson Three Rivers Legal Services, Inc Suite D−5 901 NW 8th Ave Gainesville, FL 32601 239/334−4554 Fax: 239−334−3042

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 2 of 146
Email: chris.larson@trls.org TERMINATED: 09/30/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah Whisnant Office of the Public defender 301 S. Monroe St., Ste. 401 Tallahassee, FL 32301 850/488−2458 Fax: 850/487−7964 TERMINATED: 04/05/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Lewis Bevington Holland &Knight, LLP 315 S Calhoun St − Ste 600 PO Drawer 810 Tallahassee, FL 32302 850/425−5606 Fax: 850/222−8185 Email: elizabeth.bevington@hklaw.com TERMINATED: 01/30/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hubert A. Grissom Olympic Law Group, PLLP 308 E Oak Ave Tampa, FL 33602 813−251−9303 Fax: 813−864−6368 Email: Hubert@olympiclaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James K. Green Law Office of James K. Green, PA Suite 1650 222 Lakeview Ave West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561/659−2029 Fax: 561/655−1357 Email: jameskgreen@bellsouth.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jodi Lynn Siegel Southern Legal Counsel, Inc. 1229 NW 12th Ave Gainesville, FL 32601−4113 352/271−8890 Fax: 352/271−8347 Email: jodi.siegel@southernlegal.org TERMINATED: 05/23/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY
Karen Ivy Meeks Law Office of Karen I. Meeks PO Box 1598 Bartow, FL 33831 863/534−8300 Fax: 863−534−8310 Email: karen@kmeeks.com

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 3 of 146
TERMINATED: 04/07/1989 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael D. Guare Florida Rural Legal Services, Inc. 963 E. Memorial Blvd. P.O. Box 24688 Lakeland, FL 33802−4688 941/688−7376 TERMINATED: 09/30/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Marie Zollo 3315 S Flagler Dr West Palm Beach, FL 33405−1907 850/251−4819 Email: zollo_nina@fcadv.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nora Leto Kaylor &Kaylor, PA 525 Avenue G NW PO Box 73 Winter Haven, FL 33882 863/299−1241 Fax: 863/297−5046 Email: nleto@kaylor−kaylor.com TERMINATED: 08/25/1989 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert J. Shapiro Robert J. Shapiro PO Box 1913 Bradenton, FL 34206 941/708−8770 x2262 Fax: 941/714−7536 Email: robshapiro@tampabay.rr.com TERMINATED: 05/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen Focey Hanlon Holland &Knight, LLP Suite 1100 800 17th St NW Washington, DC 20006 202/828−1871 Fax: 202/955−5564 Email: sfh29@law.georgetown.edu LEAD ATTORNEY
Steven J. Schwartz Center for Public Representation 22 Green Street Northampton, MA 01060 413/586−6024 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alice K. Nelson Southern Legal Counsel, Inc.

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 4 of 146

1229 NW 12th Ave Gainesville, FL 32601−4113 352/271−8890 Email: alice.nelson@southernlegal.org TERMINATED: 05/23/1996 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robin L. Rosenberg Law Office of Robin L. Rosenberg PO Box 1812 Tampa, FL 33601−1812 813/625−3722 Email: robin.rosenberg@mac.com TERMINATED: 03/30/2007

Plaintiff
Lloyd Koger on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated

represented by Christine Elizabeth Larson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Lewis Bevington (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hubert A. Grissom (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James K. Green (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karen Ivy Meeks (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/07/1989 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael D. Guare (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Marie Zollo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nora Leto (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/25/1989 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert J. Shapiro (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/08/2000

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 5 of 146

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen Focey Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Steven J. Schwartz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robin L. Rosenberg (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/30/2007

Plaintiff
Gail Bjerkenes on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated

represented by Christine Elizabeth Larson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Lewis Bevington (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hubert A. Grissom (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James K. Green (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karen Ivy Meeks (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/07/1989 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael D. Guare (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Marie Zollo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nora Leto (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/25/1989 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert J. Shapiro (See above for address)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 6 of 146

TERMINATED: 05/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen Focey Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Steven J. Schwartz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robin L. Rosenberg (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/30/2007

Plaintiff
Sandra Guinn on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated

represented by Christine Elizabeth Larson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Lewis Bevington (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hubert A. Grissom (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James K. Green (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karen Ivy Meeks (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/07/1989 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael D. Guare (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Marie Zollo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nora Leto (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/25/1989 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert J. Shapiro

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 7 of 146

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen Focey Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Steven J. Schwartz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robin L. Rosenberg (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/30/2007

Plaintiff
Daniel Fennell on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated

represented by Christine Elizabeth Larson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Lewis Bevington (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hubert A. Grissom (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James K. Green (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karen Ivy Meeks (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/07/1989 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael D. Guare (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Marie Zollo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nora Leto (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/25/1989 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 8 of 146
Robert J. Shapiro (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen Focey Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Steven J. Schwartz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robin L. Rosenberg (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/30/2007

V. Intervenor Plaintiff USA

represented by Aileen M. Bell Department of Justice Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. − PHB 5732 Washington, DC 20530−0001 202/514−5695 LEAD ATTORNEY
Arthur E. Peabody , Jr. U.S. Attorney's Office 2100 Jamieson Ave. Alexandria, VA 22314 703/299−3700 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christy E. Lopez U.S. Dept. of Justice Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division P.O. Box 66400 Washington, DC 20035−6400 202/514−6534 TERMINATED: 03/02/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY
Elaine R. Lubin U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section P.O. Box 66400 Washington, DC 20035−6400 202/616−8657 TERMINATED: 03/25/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laurie J. Weinstein U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section P.O. Box 66400

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 9 of 146
Washington, DC 20035−6400 202/616−8657 TERMINATED: 03/07/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Wilson Edwards Department of Justice Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. − PHB 5732 Washington, DC 20530−0001 202/514−5695 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael L. Seigel U.S. Attorney's Office Middle District of Florida 400 N. Tampa St., Suite 3200 Tampa, FL 33602 813/274−6000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robinsue Frohboese U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section P.O. Box 66400 Washington, DC 20035−6400 202/616−8657 LEAD ATTORNEY
Tawana E. Davis U.S. Dept. of Justice Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division P.O. Box 66400 Washington, DC 20035−6400 202/514−6534 TERMINATED: 09/23/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY
Verlin H. Deerinwater U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section P.O. Box 66400 Washington, DC 20035−6400 202/616−8657 LEAD ATTORNEY
Warren A. Zimmerman Todd Foster, PLLC 1881 W Kennedy Blvd Tampa, FL 33606 813−229−7373 Fax: 813−280−9981 Email: wzimmerman@tfosterlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY
Janet Reno Attorney General's Office Civil Division, Torts Branch P. O. Box 888

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 10 of 146
Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, DC 20004 202/501−8319
Joseph R. Zogby Department of Justice Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. − PHB 5732 Washington, DC 20530−0001 202/514−5695

V.
Defendant
Dick Bradley TERMINATED: 11/09/1995

represented by Eric Joseph Taylor Office of the Attorney General Suite 1000 135 W Central Ave Orlando, FL 32801 407−317−7007 Fax: 407−317−4071 Email: Eric_Taylor@oag.state.fl.us TERMINATED: 01/23/1989 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Howard M. Talenfeld Colodny, Fass,Talenfeld, Karlinsky &Abate, PA One Financial Plaza − 23rd Flr 100 SE Third Ave Ft Lauderdale, FL 33394−0002 954/492−4010 Fax: 954/492−1144 Email: htalenfeld@cftlaw.com TERMINATED: 01/26/1994 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Orrin Williams , Jr. Williams, Leininger &Cosby, PA Suite 301 1555 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561/615−5666 Fax: 561/615−9606 Email: jwilliams@wlclaw.com TERMINATED: 08/24/1989 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joel Stephen Fass Colodny, Fass,Talenfeld, Karlinsky &Abate, PA One Financial Plaza − 23rd Flr 100 SE Third Ave Ft Lauderdale, FL 33394−0002 954/492−4010 Fax: 954/492−1144 Email: jfass@cftlaw.com TERMINATED: 07/22/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 11 of 146

Morris E. Shelkofsky , Jr. Morris Shelkofsky, Esq. Unit A 2564 Panther Creek Rd Tallahassee, FL 32308−5671 850/443−9903 Email: thecat202@hotmail.com TERMINATED: 11/09/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anthony N. Deluccia , Jr. Florida Dept. of HRS 2295 Victoria Ave., Suite 103 P.O. Box 60085 Ft. Myers, FL 33906 813/338−1147 TERMINATED: 11/09/1995

Defendant G. Pierce Wood Memor

represented by Eric Joseph Taylor (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/23/1989 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Orrin Williams , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/24/1989 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joel Stephen Fass (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark S. Dunn Office of the Attorney General PL−01 − The Capitol 400 S Monroe St Tallahassee, FL 32399−1050 850/414−3300 Fax: 850−488−4872 Email: mark_dunn@oag.state.fl.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Morris E. Shelkofsky , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas B. York The York Legal Group, LLC 3511 N Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Victor P. Stabile Dilworth Paxson LLP 112 Market St., 8th Floor

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 12 of 146

Harrisburg, PA 17101 717/236−4812 LEAD ATTORNEY

Anthony N. Deluccia , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/1995

Jason Vail Office of the Attorney General PL−01 − The Capitol 400 S Monroe St Tallahassee, FL 32399−1050 850/414−3300 Email: Jay.vail@myfloridalegal.com

Steven B. Goodman Dilworth Paxson LLP 112 Market St., 8th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 717/236−4812

Defendant Fl Dept Of Health/re

represented by Eric Joseph Taylor (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/23/1989 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Orrin Williams , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/24/1989 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joel Stephen Fass (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark S. Dunn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Morris E. Shelkofsky , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Victor P. Stabile (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Anthony N. Deluccia , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/1995

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 13 of 146

Jason Vail (See above for address)

Steven B. Goodman (See above for address)

Defendant
Gregory L. Coler TERMINATED: 01/25/1993

represented by Eric Joseph Taylor (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/23/1989 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Howard M. Talenfeld (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Orrin Williams , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/24/1989 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joel Stephen Fass (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anthony N. Deluccia , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/1995

Defendant
Robert Williams as Acting Secretary of Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Servicesa

represented by Howard M. Talenfeld (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/26/1994 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark S. Dunn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Morris E. Shelkofsky , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Victor P. Stabile (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Jason Vail (See above for address)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 14 of 146

Steven B. Goodman (See above for address)

Defendant Secretary George H Sheldon

represented by Mark S. Dunn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Defendant State of Florida
Intervenor Defendant Jeb Bush Governor of teh State of Florida

represented by Chesterfield Smith , Jr. Office of the Attorney General PL−01 − The Capitol 400 S Monroe St Tallahassee, FL 32399−1050 850/414−3665 Fax: 850−488−4872 Email: chesterfield_smith@oag.state.fl.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark S. Dunn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Pamela H. Page Attorney General's Office Corrections Litigation Branch The Capitol, Suite PL−01 Tallahassee, FL 32399−1050 850/414−3300 TERMINATED: 05/13/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas B. York (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Victor P. Stabile (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Jason Vail (See above for address)
Steven B. Goodman (See above for address)
represented by Chesterfield Smith , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark S. Dunn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 15 of 146

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Pamela H. Page (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY

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

Victor P. Stabile (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Jason Vail (See above for address)

Steven B. Goodman (See above for address)

Intervenor Defendant
Ed Feaver Secretary Department of Children and Families

represented by Chesterfield Smith , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark S. Dunn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Pamela H. Page (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY

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

Victor P. Stabile (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Jason Vail (See above for address)

Steven B. Goodman (See above for address)

Intervenor Defendant
Robert Constantine Assistant Secretary of the Office of Alcohol, Drug Abuse &Mental Health

represented by Chesterfield Smith , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark S. Dunn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 16 of 146

Pamela H. Page (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY

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

Victor P. Stabile (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Jason Vail (See above for address)

Steven B. Goodman (See above for address)

Intervenor Defendant
Frances Gibbons Department of Children and Families District 8 Administrator

represented by Chesterfield Smith , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark S. Dunn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Pamela H. Page (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY

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

Victor P. Stabile (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Jason Vail (See above for address)

Steven B. Goodman (See above for address)

Intervenor Defendant
Lynn Richard Department of Children and Families District 5 Administrator

represented by Chesterfield Smith , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark S. Dunn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Pamela H. Page (See above for address)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 17 of 146

TERMINATED: 05/13/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY

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

Victor P. Stabile (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Jason Vail (See above for address)

Steven B. Goodman (See above for address)

Intervenor Defendant
Don Dixon Department of Children and Families District 6 Administrator

represented by Chesterfield Smith , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark S. Dunn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Pamela H. Page (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY

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

Victor P. Stabile (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Jason Vail (See above for address)

Steven B. Goodman (See above for address)

Intervenor Defendant
Sue Gray Department of Children and Families District 15 Administrator

represented by Chesterfield Smith , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark S. Dunn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Pamela H. Page (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 18 of 146

Intervenor Defendant Pam Paulick Department of Children and Families District 15 Administrator
Intervenor Defendant Martin Von Holden Director, G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital

Thomas B. York (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Victor P. Stabile (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Jason Vail (See above for address)
Steven B. Goodman (See above for address)
represented by Chesterfield Smith , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark S. Dunn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Pamela H. Page (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
Thomas B. York (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Victor P. Stabile (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Jason Vail (See above for address)
Steven B. Goodman (See above for address)
represented by Chesterfield Smith , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark S. Dunn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Pamela H. Page (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
Steven B. Goodman

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 19 of 146

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

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

Victor P. Stabile (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Jason Vail (See above for address)

Claimant Mary D. Dorsey

Interested Party Gerald Regier

represented by Mark S. Dunn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason Vail (See above for address)

Mediator
Martha J. Cook TERMINATED: 07/25/1996

represented by Martha Jean Cook Cook &Bell Mediation Group 100 N. Tampa St. Suite 2100 Tampa, FL 33602 813/221−2500 TERMINATED: 07/25/1996

Mediator
Peter J. Grilli TERMINATED: 02/29/2000

represented by Peter J. Grilli Peter J. Grilli, P.A. 3001 W. Azeele St. Tampa, FL 33609−3138 813/874−1002 Email: meditr@aol.com PRO SE

V. Movant Mark Gray
Movant Agency for Health Care Administration

represented by Mark Gray 7742 Westmoreland Dr. Sarasota, Fl 34243−1935 PRO SE
represented by Mark S. Dunn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Moses Eugene Williams Williams &Jacobs

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 20 of 146

Suite 104 2510 Miccosukee Rd Tallahassee, FL 32308 850/222−1246 Email: moseswilliams@netzero.com TERMINATED: 06/02/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY

Pamela H. Page (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Victor P. Stabile (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

William H. Roberts Agency for Health Care Administration Mail Stop 3 2727 Mahan Dr Tallahassee, FL 32308−5407 850/922−5873 Fax: 850/921−0158 Email: robertsw@ahca.myflorida.com TERMINATED: 06/02/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Department of Children and Families

represented by Mark S. Dunn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Pamela H. Page (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald L. Harrop Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman &Dicker, LLP Suite 1200 111 N. Orange Ave. Orlando, FL 32801 407/423−7287 Fax: 407/648−1376 Email: ronald.harrop@wilsonelser.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Martin Von Holden

represented by Mark S. Dunn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 21 of 146
Thomas B. York (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Victor P. Stabile (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Jason Vail (See above for address)
Steven B. Goodman (See above for address)

Date Filed 03/11/1987 03/11/1987 03/11/1987 03/17/1987 03/17/1987 04/08/1987
11/03/1987 12/03/1987 12/14/1987
12/17/1987 12/28/1987
03/17/1988 03/17/1988 03/21/1988 03/23/1988
04/04/1988

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT filed (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
2 MOTION by Miller Frank Johnson to proceed in forma pauperis (affidavit of indigency) (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
CASE REFERRED to Judge Charles R. Wilson for discovery. (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
SUMMONS(ES) issued for Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Gregory L. Coler . Consent(s) issued. (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
FILE forwarded to Magistrate Game for IFP/1915 review. File rerouted to Judge rather than Magistrate. (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
3 ORDER granting [2−1] motion to proceed in forma pauperis (affidavit of indigency) Clerk authorized to issue summons. Marshal authorized to serve process without prepayment. ( Signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges ) (Summons mailed to Atty. James Mensing) (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
4 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Response to order to show cause due 11/30/87 ( Signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges ) (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
5 RESPONSE by Miller Frank Johnson to [4−1] order (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
6 AMENDED COMPLAINT by Miller Frank Johnson , (Answer due 12/24/87 for Gregory L. Coler, for Dick Bradley, for G. Pierce Wood Memor, for Fl Dept Of Health/re ) amending [1−1] complaint (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
7 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to Dick Bradley 12/15/87 Answer due on 1/4/88 for Dick Bradley (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
8 NOTICE of attorney appearance for Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Gregory L. Coler by Eric Joseph Taylor, Anthony N. Deluccia Jr. (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
9 NOTICE of attorney appearance for Miller Frank Johnson by Karen Ivy Meeks (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
10 MOTION by Miller Frank Johnson to extend time to file motion for class action (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
11 ORDER Requiring Status Information. Status information due by 4/5/88 ( Signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges ) (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
12 ORDER granting [10−1] motion to extend time to file motion for class action, set motion filing deadline for 3/31/88 (s/JFG/03/23/88/Notified) (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
13 MOTION by Miller Frank Johnson to certify class action (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 22 of 146

04/04/1988 04/05/1988 04/05/1988 05/03/1988
05/10/1988 05/20/1988 06/01/1988 08/03/1988 09/03/1988 10/13/1988 11/07/1988 12/08/1988 12/08/1988 12/14/1988 12/14/1988 12/14/1988 12/14/1988
12/16/1988 12/21/1988
01/13/1989

14 MEMORANDUM by Miller Frank Johnson in support of [13−1] motion to certify class action (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
15 RESPONSE to Order Requiring Status Information by Miller Frank Johnson. Discovery completion − 6 months; trial time − 2 to 4 days; settlement probability − partial settlement likely; complete settlement. (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
16 PLEADING #16 is a duplicate of #15 and does not exist in file. (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
17 SCHEDULING ORDER setting Discovery cutoff 1/5/89 ; Jury trial set for weeks beginning 2/6/89, 2/13/89, 2/20/89, 2/27/89; pretrial conference to be scheduled at later date by separate notice to counsel. ( signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges ) (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
18 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Response to order to show cause due 5/30/88 as to why this action should not be dismissed pursuant to rule 1.07 (b), M.D. Fla. Rules. ( Signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges ) (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
19 ANSWER by Dick Bradley, Gregory L. Coler to amended complaint (cek) (Entered: 05/08/1991)
20 RESPONSE by Miller Frank Johnson to [18−1] order (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
21 MOTION by Miller Frank Johnson for leave to file third amended complaint (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
22 NOTICE of Hearing: set pretrial conference for 10:30 1/16/89 (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
23 NOTICE of Hearing: reset pretrial conference for 10:30 1/17/89 (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
24 JOINT MOTION by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Miller Frank Johnson, Gregory L. Coler to continue pretrial conference (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
25 MOTION by Miller Frank Johnson for partial summary judgment (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
26 MOTION by Miller Frank Johnson for leave to file memo in excess of 20 pages (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
27 NOTICE of attorney appearance for Miller Frank Johnson by Christine Larson (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
28 MOTION by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Gregory L. Coler to extend time to respond to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
29 ORDER denying [24−1] joint motion to continue pretrial conference granting [21−1] motion for leave to file third amended complaint ( Signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges ) (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
30 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT by Miller Frank Johnson , (Answer due 12/24/88 for Gregory L. Coler, for Dick Bradley, for G. Pierce Wood Memor, for Fl Dept Of Health/re ) amending amended complaint (cek) Modified on 05/16/1991 (Entered: 04/23/1991)
31 ORDER granting [28−1] motion to extend time to respond to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Response to motion reset to 1/31/89 for [25−1] motion for partial summary judgment (s/JFG/12/16/88/Notified) (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
32 MOTION by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Miller Frank Johnson, Gregory L. Coler, Lloyd Koger, Gail Bjerkenes, Sandra Guinn, Daniel Fennell for clarification of 12/14/88 order , to continue pretrial, trial, discovery deadlines (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
33 NOTICE of Filing Pretrial Stipulation by Miller Frank Johnson, Lloyd Koger, Gail Bjerkenes, Sandra Guinn, Daniel Fennell (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 23 of 146

01/13/1989 01/13/1989 01/17/1989 01/17/1989 01/18/1989 01/18/1989 01/20/1989 01/23/1989 01/30/1989 01/30/1989
02/06/1989 02/13/1989 02/13/1989 02/13/1989 02/14/1989 02/15/1989 02/15/1989 02/22/1989 02/22/1989 02/27/1989

34 Pretrial STATEMENT (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
35 ANSWER by Dick Bradley, Gregory L. Coler to third amended complaint (cek) Modified on 05/16/1991 (Entered: 04/23/1991)
36 Clerks Minutes of Pretrial Conference before Magistate Game on 01/17/89. (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
Pre−trial conference held (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
37 ORDER case previously set in February will be included in calendar set for Judge Richard E. Robinson in February or March by separate Order. ( Signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges ) (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
38 SCHEDULING ORDER setting Jury trial set for 1/30/89; 2/6; 3/6 and and days of March 13, 14, 15 before Judge Richard E. Robinson. ( signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges ) (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
39 PRETRIAL ORDER Case shall proceed to trial pursuant to the pretrial stipulation − discovery shall continue up to and including 5 days prior to trial. ( Signed by Judge Charles R. Wilson ) (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
40 AGREED ORDER granting Oral Motion for Protective order filed by defts and Oral Motion to Compel filed by pltfs at pretrial conference.( Signed by Judge Charles R. Wilson ) (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
41 MOTION by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Gregory L. Coler to extend time to respond to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
42 ORDER granting [41−1] motion to extend time to respond to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Response to motion reset to 2/9/89 for [25−1] motion for partial summary judgment ( Signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges ) (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
43 NOTICE of attorney appearance for Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Gregory L. Coler by James O. Williams. (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
44 MEMORANDUM by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Gregory L. Coler in opposition to [25−1] motion for partial summary judgment (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
45 REQUEST for Oral Argument on Pltfs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by defts. (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
46 MOTION by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Gregory L. Coler to extend time to file affidavits (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
47 ORDER granting [46−1] motion to extend time to file affidavits to and including 3/1/89. (s/JFG/02/14/89/Notified) (cek) Modified on 05/21/1991 (Entered: 04/23/1991)
48 ORDER granting [32−2] motion to continue pretrial, trial, discovery deadlines to be reset by the clerk by separate notice.( Signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges ) (cek) Modified on 05/21/1991 (Entered: 04/23/1991)
STIPULATION for Continuance by parties (FAX copy). (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
49 JOINT MOTION by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Gregory L. Coler to substitute attorney (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [49−1] joint motion to substitute attorney terminated Eric Taylor. Added James Orrin Williams Jr. ( Signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges ) (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
50 MOTION by Miller Frank Johnson to extend time to reply to defts Memo in opposition to pltfs Motion for partial summary judgment (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 24 of 146

03/01/1989 03/02/1989 03/02/1989 03/16/1989
03/20/1989 03/29/1989 03/31/1989 04/07/1989 04/12/1989 04/14/1989 04/24/1989 04/25/1989 04/27/1989 05/15/1989 05/19/1989 05/30/1989

51 NOTICE of Supplemental Filing of affidavtis of George Oujevolk and Richard L. Insley by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Gregory L. Coler (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
52 ORDER granting [50−1] motion to extend time to reply to defts Memo in opposition to pltfs Motion for partial summary judgment, Reply to Response to Motion reset to 3/20/89 for [25−1] motion for partial summary judgment (s/JFG/03/02/89/Notified) (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
53 SCHEDULING ORDER setting Discovery cutoff 11/1/89 ; Pretrial conference for 11:00 4/10/89 ; Jury trial set for 11/6/89 ( signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges ) (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
54 ORDER granting [13−1] motion to certify class action. That a class is certified, consisting of all persons who are now or will in the future be committed to G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital. It is further ordered that a subclass is certified, consisting of: All present and future patients at G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital who have been determined by their treatment team to be "discharge ready" for a period of 15 days or longer, but who have not been discharged. ( Signed by Judge Paul Game, Jr.) (cek) Modified on 05/21/1991 (Entered: 04/23/1991)
55 MOTION by Miller Frank Johnson, Lloyd Koger, Gail Bjerkenes, Sandra Guinn, Daniel Fennell with memorandum in support for leave to file reply to memo in opposition to pltfs motion for partial summary judgment (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
56 SUPPLEMENTAL Witness list by Miller Frank Johnson (lgl) (Entered: 05/21/1991)
57 SUPPLEMENTAL Exhibit list by Miller Frank Johnson (lgl) (Entered: 05/21/1991)
58 NOTICE of attorney appearance for Miller Frank Johnson, Lloyd Koger, Gail Bjerkenes, Sandra Guinn, Daniel Fennell by Nora Leto (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
59 NOTICE of Hearing: reset pretrial conference for 10:00 4/24/89 before Magistrate Game. (cek) Modified on 05/21/1991 (Entered: 04/23/1991)
60 JOINT MOTION by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Miller Frank Johnson, Gregory L. Coler, Lloyd Koger, Gail Bjerkenes, Sandra Guinn, Daniel Fennell to continue pretrial conference referred to Judge Paul Game, Jr. (cek) Modified on 05/21/1991 (Entered: 04/23/1991)
61 JOINT MOTION by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Miller Frank Johnson, Gregory L. Coler, Lloyd Koger, Gail Bjerkenes, Sandra Guinn, Daniel Fennell to continue pretrial conference referred to Judge Paul Game, Jr. (cek) Modified on 05/21/1991 (Entered: 04/23/1991)
62 ORDER granting [60−1] joint motion to continue pretrial conference. Conference reset for 4/24/89 at 10:00 am.( Signed by Paul Game, Jr.) (cek) Modified on 05/21/1991 (Entered: 04/23/1991)
63 ORDER granting [61−1] joint motion to continue pretrial conference, reset pretrial conference for 10:00 5/15/89 No further continuances shall be granted.( Signed by Judge Paul Game, Jr. ) (cek) Modified on 05/21/1991 (Entered: 04/23/1991)
64 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Judge Paul Game, Jr. for all further proceedings. ( signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges ) (cek) Modified on 04/29/1991 (Entered: 04/23/1991)
65 AGREED ORDER substituting Dick Bradley as a party deft for Richard Insley who has resigned as administrator.( Signed by Judge Paul Game, Jr.) (cek) Modified on 04/29/1991 (Entered: 04/23/1991)
66 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS on pretrial conference for date of 5/15/89 before Judge Paul Game, Jr. (Filed under separate cover) (cek) Modified on 05/21/1991 (Entered: 04/23/1991)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 25 of 146

06/08/1989 06/09/1989 06/14/1989
06/20/1989 06/20/1989 06/26/1989
06/26/1989
06/29/1989 06/29/1989 07/11/1989 07/11/1989 07/11/1989 07/19/1989 07/19/1989 07/19/1989 07/19/1989 07/19/1989 07/25/1989

67 MOTION by Miller Frank Johnson, Lloyd Koger, Gail Bjerkenes, Sandra Guinn, Daniel Fennell with memorandum in support for oral argument referred to Judge Paul Game, Jr. (cek) Modified on 04/29/1991 (Entered: 04/23/1991)
68 CONSENT DECREE between pltfs and defts. Exhibit A and Comprehensive Services Plan in 2 volumes filed in deposition folder. (cek) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
69 NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT filed by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Miller Frank Johnson, Gregory L. Coler, Lloyd Koger, Gail Bjerkenes, Sandra Daniel Fennell. Any comments or objections concerning this partial settlement agreement must be filed with the court in writing, within 30 days of receiving this notice. s/PG/06/14/91/89/Notified. (cek) (Entered: 04/25/1991)
70 NOTICE of Hearing: Motion hearing set for 2:30 6/30/89 for [25−1] motion for partial summary judgment (cek) (Entered: 04/25/1991)
71 NOTICE of Hearing: Fairness hearing in room 202 on 7/25/89 at 10:30am (cek) (Entered: 04/25/1991)
72 AGREED MOTION by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Miller Frank Johnson, Gregory L. Coler, Lloyd Koger, Gail Bjerkenes, Sandra Guinn, Daniel Fennell to continue hearing set for 6/30/89 referred to Judge Paul Game, Jr. (cek) Modified on 05/21/1991 (Entered: 04/25/1991)
73 ORDER granting [72−1] motion to continue hearing set for 6/30/89, Motion hearing set for 10:00 7/19/89 for [25−1] motion for partial summary judgment ( Signed by Judge Paul Game, Jr.) (cek) Modified on 04/29/1991 (Entered: 04/25/1991)
74 Return of service unexecuted as to Fl Dept Of Health/re; service by mail 11/23/87 no return of USM 299 as of 6/23/89 on John Miller, general counsel, HRS (cek) (Entered: 04/25/1991)
75 Return of service unexecuted as to Gregory L. Coler; service by mail 11/23/87 − no return of USM 299 in USM office 6/23/89 on Gregory L. Coler. (cek) (Entered: 04/25/1991)
76 MOTION by Miller Frank Johnson for limited appearance by Deborah Whisnant as attorney referred to Judge Paul Game, Jr. (cek) Modified on 04/29/1991 (Entered: 04/25/1991)
77 NOTICE of attorney appearance for Miller Frank Johnson by Deborah Whisnant (cek) (Entered: 04/25/1991)
78 MOTION by Miller Frank Johnson to continue fairness hearing referred to Judge Paul Game, Jr. (cek) Modified on 04/29/1991 (Entered: 04/25/1991)
79 RESPONSE by Lloyd Koger, Gail Bjerkenes, Sandra Guinn, Daniel Fennell in opposition to [76−1] motion for limited appearance by Deborah Whisnant as attorney (cek) (Entered: 04/25/1991)
80 MOTION by Lloyd Koger, Gail Bjerkenes, Sandra Guinn, Daniel Fennell to strike [77−1] appear/appearance notice referred to Judge Paul Game, Jr. (cek) Modified on 04/29/1991 (Entered: 04/25/1991)
81 RESPONSE by Lloyd Koger, Gail Bjerkenes, Sandra Guinn, Daniel Fennell to [78−1] motion to continue fairness hearing. Exhibits attached. (cek) (Entered: 04/25/1991)
82 MOTION by Lloyd Koger, Gail Bjerkenes, Sandra Guinn, Daniel Fennell to appoint monitors referred to Judge Paul Game, Jr. (cek) Modified on 04/29/1991 (Entered: 04/25/1991)
83 RESPONSE by Miller Frank Johnson in opposition to Consent Decree [68−1] remark (cek) (Entered: 04/25/1991)
84 ORDER denying [80−1] motion to strike [77−1] appear/appearance notice denying [78−1] motion to continue fairness hearing granting [76−1] motion for limited appearance by Deborah Whisnant as attorney ( Signed by Judge Paul Game, Jr.)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 26 of 146

07/26/1989 07/26/1989 08/02/1989 08/02/1989 08/03/1989 08/10/1989 08/10/1989 08/14/1989
08/14/1989 08/18/1989 08/23/1989 08/24/1989 08/24/1989
08/25/1989 08/25/1989 08/28/1989 08/30/1989 09/06/1989

(cek) Modified on 04/29/1991 (Entered: 04/25/1991)
85 SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE of objections to proposed consent decree by Miller Frank Johnson (cek) (Entered: 04/25/1991)
86 AFFIDAVIT of Nora Leto by Lloyd Koger, Gail Bjerkenes, Sandra Guinn, Daniel Fennell Re: Consent Decree [68−1] remark (cek) (Entered: 04/25/1991)
87 MOTION by Dick Bradley, Gregory L. Coler to appoint single, local monitor referred to Judge Paul Game, Jr. (cek) Modified on 04/29/1991 (Entered: 04/25/1991)
88 MOTION by Dick Bradley, Gregory L. Coler for evidentiary hearing referred to Judge Paul Game, Jr. (cek) Modified on 04/29/1991 (Entered: 04/25/1991)
89 RESPONSE by Miller Frank Johnson to [87−1] motion to appoint single, local monitor (cek) (Entered: 04/25/1991)
90 RESPONSE by Lloyd Koger, Gail Bjerkenes, Sandra Guinn, Daniel Fennell to [88−1] motion for evidentiary hearing (cek) (Entered: 04/25/1991)
91 RESPONSE by Lloyd Koger, Gail Bjerkenes, Sandra Guinn, Daniel Fennell in opposition to [87−1] motion to appoint single, local monitor (cek) (Entered: 04/25/1991)
92 ORDER Pursuant to the Consent Decree, all claims and prayers for relief shall upon the filing of a Stipulation of dismissal in such form as attached to Exhibit B to the Agreement, be dismissed with prejudice. ( Signed by Judge Paul Game Jr.) (cek) Modified on 04/29/1991 (Entered: 04/25/1991)
93 NOTICE of Hearing: set evidentiary hearing for 2:30 8/28/89 on defts Motion for appointment of Single Local Monitor and Budget for Monitor in Room 202 (cek) (Entered: 04/25/1991)
94 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS on Fairness Hearing for date of 7/25/89 before Judge Paul Game, Jr.. (cek) (Entered: 04/25/1991)
95 MOTION by Dick Bradley, Gregory L. Coler to continue evidentiary hearing referred to Judge Paul Game, Jr. (cek) Modified on 04/29/1991 (Entered: 04/25/1991)
96 MOTION by Dick Bradley, Gregory L. Coler to substitute attorney (cek) (Entered: 04/25/1991)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [96−1] motion to substitute attorney terminated attorney James Orrin Williams Jr. for Gregory L. Coler, attorney James Orrin Williams Jr. for Dick Bradley, attorney James Orrin Williams Jr. for G. Pierce Wood Memor, attorney James Orrin Williams Jr. for Fl Dept Of Health/re Added Joel Stephen Fass ( Signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges ) (cek) (Entered: 04/25/1991)
97 NOTICE of attorney appearance for Miller Frank Johnson, Lloyd Koger, Gail Bjerkenes, Sandra Guinn, Daniel Fennell by Michael D. Guare (cek) (Entered: 04/25/1991)
98 RESPONSE by Lloyd Koger, Gail Bjerkenes, Sandra Guinn, Daniel Fennell in opposition to [95−1] motion to continue evidentiary hearing (cek) (Entered: 04/25/1991)
99 ORDER granting [95−1] motion to continue evidentiary hearing, reset evidentiary hearing for 2:30 9/6/89 ( Signed by Judge Paul Game, Jr.) (cek) Modified on 04/29/1991 (Entered: 04/25/1991)
100 MOTION by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Gregory L. Coler for general and special admission of Howard Talenfeld referred to Judge Paul Game, Jr. (cek) Modified on 04/29/1991 (Entered: 04/25/1991)
101 STIPULATION regarding appointment of monitors by defendant Fl Dept Of Health/re, defendant G. Pierce Wood Memor, defendant Dick Bradley, plaintiff Miller Frank Johnson, defendant Gregory L. Coler, plaintiff Lloyd Koger, plaintiff

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 27 of 146

09/11/1989 09/11/1989
09/13/1989
09/13/1989
10/11/1989 10/12/1989
10/13/1989 10/19/1989 10/23/1989
10/25/1989
10/25/1989 10/26/1989 10/26/1989 10/31/1989 11/01/1989 11/16/1989

Gail Bjerkenes, plaintiff Sandra Guinn, plaintiff Daniel Fennell . (cek) (Entered: 04/25/1991)
102 NOTICE of Change of Address by Miller Frank Johnson, Lloyd Koger, Gail Bjerkenes, Sandra Guinn, Daniel Fennell (cek) (Entered: 04/25/1991)
103 MOTION by Miller Frank Johnson, Lloyd Koger, Gail Bjerkenes, Sandra Guinn, Daniel Fennell with memorandum in support to extend time to file application for award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses referred to Judge Paul Game, Jr. (cek) Modified on 04/29/1991 (Entered: 04/25/1991)
104 ORDER granting [103−1] motion to extend time to file application for award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses, set motion filing deadline for 10/28/89 ( Signed by Judge Paul Game, Jr.) (cek) Modified on 04/29/1991 (Entered: 04/25/1991)
105 ORDER granting [82−1] motion to appoint monitors The court approves and appoints David Ferlinger, Linda Glenn and Dorothy Rowe to perform the monitoring role provided by the Consent Decree and Stipulation. ( Signed by Judge Paul Game, Jr. (cek) Modified on 04/29/1991 (Entered: 04/25/1991)
106 WORKPLAN AND BUDGET submitted by Office of the Monitor, David Ferleger, Linda Glenn, Dorothy Rowe. (cek) (Entered: 04/25/1991)
107 ORDER A hearing is scheduled for November 1, 1989 at 3:00 pm in room 202. Deft Secretary Coler shall notify the Governor that the Governor's Liaison appointed under the decree is requested to attend.( Signed by Judge Paul Game, Jr.) (cek) Modified on 04/29/1991 (Entered: 04/25/1991)
108 RESPONSE by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Gregory L. Coler in opposition to [106−1] remark (Monitor's Workplan and Budget) (cek) (Entered: 04/25/1991)
REGISTRY FUNDS received in the amount of $60,000.00 from G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, receipt #40332. (cek) Modified on 05/21/1991 (Entered: 04/25/1991)
109 MOTION by Miller Frank Johnson, Lloyd Koger, Gail Bjerkenes, Sandra Guinn, Daniel Fennell with memorandum in support to extend time to file application for award of attorneys fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses referred to Judge Paul Game, Jr. (cek) Modified on 04/29/1991 (Entered: 04/25/1991)
110 MOTION by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Gregory L. Coler to extend time in which to file defts objection to monitors' revised work plan and budget referred to Judge Paul Game, Jr. (cek) Modified on 04/29/1991 (Entered: 04/25/1991)
111 RESPONSE by Miller Frank Johnson, Lloyd Koger, Gail Bjerkenes, Sandra Guinn, Daniel Fennell in opposition to [106−1] remark (Monitor's Proposed Workplan) (cek) (Entered: 04/25/1991)
112 RESPONSE by Advocacy Center to [111−1] opposition response to Monitor's Workplan and Budget (cek) (Entered: 04/25/1991)
113 RESPONSE by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Gregory L. Coler in opposition to [106−1] remark (Monitor's Workplan and Budget). Exhibits attached. (cek) (Entered: 04/25/1991)
114 OFFICE of the Monitor Report for Status Conference. (cek) (Entered: 04/25/1991)
115 EXCERPT/TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS on Motion for Summary Judgment for date of 07/19/89 before Judge Magistrate Paul Game. Court reporter: Elizabeth Gotch. (cek) (Entered: 04/25/1991)
116 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS on Motions Hearing for date of 09/06/89 before Judge Paul Game, Jr. Court Reporter: W. Craig DeLoach. (cek) (Entered: 04/25/1991)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 28 of 146

11/17/1989
11/17/1989 11/17/1989
11/20/1989
11/28/1989 11/28/1989 11/30/1989 12/01/1989 12/05/1989
12/05/1989 12/05/1989 12/05/1989
12/12/1989
12/12/1989 12/12/1989 12/14/1989 12/18/1989

117 ORDER that the Court−Approved Workplan and Budget for the Nine Months: October 1, 1989−June 30, 1990 is ADOPTED AND CONFIRMED and otherwise made a part of this Court( Signed by Judge Paul Game, Jr.) (cek) Modified on 04/29/1991 (Entered: 04/25/1991)
118 COURT Approved Workplan and Budget Nine Months: October 1, 1989 − June 30, 1990. (cek) (Entered: 04/25/1991)
119 ORDER regarding Payment of Fees and Expenses for Office of the Monitor. Any party having any objection to such payment shall file objection within 10 days of the date of this order. Attachment.( Signed by Judge Paul Game, Jr.) (cek) Modified on 04/29/1991 (Entered: 04/25/1991)
120 THIRD JOINT MOTION by Miller Frank Johnson, Lloyd Koger, Gail Bjerkenes, Sandra Guinn, Daniel Fennell to extend time to file application for attorneys fees and costs referred to Judge Paul Game, Jr. (cek) Modified on 04/29/1991 (Entered: 04/25/1991)
121 ORDER granting [120−1] motion to extend time to file application for attorneys fees and costs, reset motion filing deadline for 11/30/89 ( Signed by Judge Paul Game, Jr.) (cek) Modified on 04/29/1991 (Entered: 04/25/1991)
122 MOTION by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Gregory L. Coler to extend time to Object to Monitor's Request for Payment (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
123 FOURTH JOINT MOTION by Miller Frank Johnson, Lloyd Koger, Gail Bjerkenes, Sandra Guinn, Daniel Fennell to extend time to file application for attorney's fees and costs (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
CORRESPONDENCE received from Harold A. Mayo, Director of the Mental Health Clearing House (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
124 ORDER denying [25−1] motion for partial summary judgment granting [26−1] motion for leave to file memo in excess of 20 pages granting [55−1] motion for leave to file reply to memo in opposition to pltfs motion for partial summary judgment ( Signed by Judge Paul Game, Jr.) (cek) Modified on 04/29/1991 (Entered: 04/29/1991)
125 REPLY by Miller Frank Johnson, Lloyd Koger, Gail Bjerkenes, Sandra Guinn, Daniel Fennell to response to [25−1] motion for partial summary judgment (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
126 MEMORANDUM by Miller Frank Johnson, Lloyd Koger, Gail Bjerkenes, Sandra Guinn, Daniel Fennell in support of [25−1] motion for partial summary judgment (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
127 ORDER granting [122−1] motion to extend time to Object to Monitor's Request for Payment. Defts shall have 7 days from their receipt of the Monitors' presently pending request for payment and fees in which to file objections; defts shall have 7 days from receipt of all future request for payment to file their objections. ( Signed by Judge Paul Game, Jr. )(cek) Modified on 04/29/1991 (Entered: 04/29/1991)
128 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Gregory L. Coler Fee Status: paid Receipt #41608 Appeal Information Sheet to Appellant. Certificate of Readiness due on 12/27/89 (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
Certified copies of notice of appeal, judgment/order under appeal, and docket transmitted to USCA: [128−1] appeal (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
APPEAL Information Sheet sent to Appellant. (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
129 MOTION by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Gregory L. Coler to extend time to prepare brochure referred to Judge Paul Game Jr. (cek) Modified on 04/29/1991 (Entered: 04/29/1991)
130 SCHEDULING ORDER setting Pretrial conference for 3:00 1/26/90 ; Bench trial set for week beginning 2/26/90 ( signed by Judge Paul Game, Jr.) (cek) Modified

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 29 of 146

12/22/1989 12/28/1989 12/28/1989 12/28/1989
12/29/1989
01/03/1990 01/05/1990 01/09/1990 01/16/1990 01/16/1990 01/17/1990 01/18/1990
01/22/1990 01/22/1990
01/24/1990
01/26/1990 01/31/1990

on 04/29/1991 (Entered: 04/29/1991)
131 NOTICE of Non−Compliance 89−1 by Office of Monitor (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
132 ORDER granting [129−1] motion to extend time to prepare brochure until 01/15/90 to be available for distribution by 2/15/90. ( Signed by Judge Paul Game, Jr.) (cek) Modified on 04/29/1991 (Entered: 04/29/1991)
133 ORDER any party having objection to payment of fees/expenses for Office of Monitor submit within 7 days from receipt of this order.( Signed by Judge Paul Game, Jr. ) (cek) Modified on 04/29/1991 (Entered: 04/29/1991)
134 ORDER Payment APPROVED in the amount of $17,666.26 for Office of the Monitor within 20 days from the date of this order. Clerk shall pay sum from Registry of the Court. (copy to finance) ( Signed by Judge Paul Game, Jr. ) (cek) Modified on 04/29/1991 (Entered: 04/29/1991)
135 JOINT MOTION by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Miller Frank Johnson, Gregory L. Coler, Lloyd Koger, Gail Bjerkenes, Sandra Guinn, Daniel Fennell for attorney fees and litigation expenses referred to Judge Paul Game, Jr. (cek) Modified on 04/29/1991 (Entered: 04/29/1991)
136 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS on status hearing for date of 11/01/89 before Judge Paul Game, Jr. Court Reporter: Kay E. Sandford, Frecka &Associates. (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
REGISTRY FUNDS received in the amount of $60,000.00 from G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, receipt #42006 (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
137 ORDER granting [135−1] joint motion for attorney fees and litigation expenses ( Signed by Judge Paul Game Jr. ) (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
138 NOTICE of No Objection to Payment of Fees and Expenses for Office of the Monitor by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Gregory L. Coler (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
REQUEST from USCA to send docket entry #124. (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
TRANSMITTAL LETTER to USCA forwarding original document #124 per request. (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
139 ORDER for Payment of Fees and Expenses for Office of the Monitor. Ordered that payment is APPROVED in the amount requested and that the clerk shall pay the sum of $7,727.15 from the Registry of the Court to the Office of the Monitor within 20 days of this order.( Signed by Judge Paul Game Jr. ) (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
140 MOTION by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Gregory L. Coler to continue pretrial conference referred to Judge Paul Game Jr. (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
141 MOTION by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Gregory L. Coler for leave to file affirmative defenses supplementing answer to pltfs 3rd amended complaint referred to Judge Paul Game Jr. (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
142 ORDER regarding payment of fees and expenses for office of the Monitor − any party having any objection to such payment shall file such objection within 7 days from receipt of this order.( Signed by Judge Paul Game Jr. ) (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
143 ACKNOWLEDGMENT from USCA of receiving docket entry #124. A copy of the document was made by USCA and the original was returned. (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
144 MOTION by Miller Frank Johnson, Lloyd Koger, Gail Bjerkenes, Sandra Guinn, Daniel Fennell to extend time to reply to defts motion for leave to file affirmative defense supplementing answer to pltfs third amended complaint referred to Judge

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 30 of 146

02/07/1990
02/09/1990 02/09/1990 02/09/1990 02/09/1990 02/12/1990 02/14/1990 02/15/1990
02/15/1990 02/16/1990 02/20/1990
02/27/1990
02/27/1990
02/27/1990 02/28/1990 03/02/1990 03/02/1990

Paul Game Jr. (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
145 ORDER granting [144−1] motion to extend time to reply to defts motion for leave to file affirmative defense supplementing answer to pltfs third amended complaint, Response to motion reset to 2/14/90 for [141−1] motion for leave to file affirmative defenses supplementing answer to pltfs 3rd amended complaint , reset pretrial conference for 2/23/90 at 4:00 , set pretrial statement deadline for 2/20/90 ( Signed by Judge Paul Game Jr. ) (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
146 MOTION by Fl Dept Of Health/re to remove monitors Ferleger and Glenn referred to Judge Paul Game Jr. (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
147 MEMORANDUM by Fl Dept Of Health/re in support of [146−1] motion to remove monitors Ferleger and Glenn (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
148 BUDGET REVIEW − First Quarter by Office of the Monitor. (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
149 APPENDIX to Motion to Remove Monitors by defts. (in separate accordian folder) (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
RECEIVED copy of correspondence from USCA re: jurisdiction. (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
150 REQUEST for Oral Argument and Evidentiary Hearing by defts. (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
151 MOTION by Miller Frank Johnson, Lloyd Koger, Gail Bjerkenes, Sandra Guinn, Daniel Fennell with memorandum in support to require Defts to File an Amended Motion to Remove Monitors (Motion) referred to Judge Paul Game Jr. (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
152 ORDER granting [140−1] motion to continue pretrial conference. This matter shall not be renoticed for trial prior to February 14, 1991 pursuant to parties stipulation. ( Signed by Judge Paul Game Jr. ) (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
153 SECOND STATUS REPORT to the Court by Office of the Monitor. (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
154 JOINT MOTION by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Miller Frank Johnson, Gregory L. Coler, Lloyd Koger, Gail Bjerkenes, Sandra Guinn, Daniel Fennell to continue pretrial and trial referred to Judge Paul Game Jr. (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
155 ORDER The Clerk is directed to file the Second Status Report of the Office of the Monitor (doc. #153). Comments about the report must be filed with the Court and provided to the Office of the Monitor by Noon, March 5, 1990.( Signed by Judge Paul Game Jr. ) (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
156 ORDER regarding payment of fees and expenses for Office of the Monitor. Any party having any objection to such payment shall file such objection within seven days from receipt of this order.( Signed by Judge Paul Game Jr. ) (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
157 RESPONSE by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Gregory L. Coler to [151−1] motion to require Defts to File an Amended Motion to Remove Monitors (Motion) (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
158 NOTICE of Hearing: reset status conference for 2:30 3/28/90 before Magistrate Game (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
159 JOINT MOTION by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Gregory L. Coler to extend time to respond to Monitors Second Status Report referred to Judge Paul Game Jr. (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
160 ORDER granting [159−1] joint motion to extend time to respond to Monitors Second Status Report and parties shall have an additional 7 days or until March 12, 1990 in which to respond.( Signed by Judge Paul Game Jr. ) (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 31 of 146

03/06/1990
03/12/1990 03/12/1990 03/12/1990 03/12/1990 03/13/1990 03/16/1990
03/16/1990 03/16/1990
03/19/1990 03/19/1990 03/19/1990 03/22/1990 03/22/1990

161 ORDER Payment is Approved in the amount requested and that the Clerk shall pay the sum of $12,869.62 from the Registry of the Court to the Office of the Monitor within 20 days from the date of this order for fees and expenses for the period of 12/01/89 through 12/31/89.( Signed by Judge Paul Game Jr. ) (cek) Modified on 05/21/1991 (Entered: 04/29/1991)
162 MOTION by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Gregory L. Coler to stay proceedings and monitoring by Ferleger and Glenn pending Ruling and Supplement to Motion to Remove Monitors referred to Judge Paul Game Jr. (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
163 MOTION by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Gregory L. Coler with memorandum in support to strike [153−1] remark (Second Status Report) , to cancel Status Conference scheduled for March 28, 1990 referred to Judge Paul Game Jr. (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
164 RESPONSE by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Gregory L. Coler in opposition and Comments to [153−1] remark (Second Status Report) (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
165 MOTION by Advocacy Center with memorandum in support for leave to appear as Amicus Curiae Exhibits attached. Proposed order. referred to Judge Paul Game Jr. (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
166 ORDER Regarding Payment of Fees and Expenses for Office of the Monitor. Any party having any objection to such payment shall file such objection within seven days from receipt of this order. Attachment. ( Signed by Judge Paul Game Jr. ) (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
167 ORDER The Clerk is directed to file the Third Status Report to the Court. The comments of the parties regarding this report shall be filed within 7 days from receipt of this Order; granting [165−1] motion for leave to appear as Amicus Curiae denying [163−1] motion to strike [153−1] remark (Second Status Report) denying [163−2] motion to cancel Status Conference scheduled for March 28, 1990 ( Signed by Judge Paul Game Jr. ) (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
168 THIRD STATUS REPORT to the Court by Office of the Monitor. (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
169 ORDER Request for payment of fees and expenses for the Office of the Monitor is APPROVED in the amount of $17,512.28 and the Clerk shall pay from the Registry of the Court to the Office of the Monitor within 20 days from the date of this order fees and expenses incurred shown in the attached Consolidated Monthly Statement for the Period of 01/01/90 through 01/31/90.( Signed by Judge Paul Game Jr. ) (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
170 MOTION by Miller Frank Johnson, Lloyd Koger, Gail Bjerkenes, Sandra Guinn, Daniel Fennell to approve hiring of Marian Bruin and Jana Thorpe , to require advance payment into court registry referred to Judge Paul Game Jr. (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
171 MOTION by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Gregory L. Coler to strike [168−1] remark(Third Status Report , to cancel status conference scheduled for 03/28/90 referred to Judge Paul Game Jr. (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
172 MOTION by Miller Frank Johnson, Lloyd Koger, Gail Bjerkenes, Sandra Guinn, Daniel Fennell for status conference referred to Paul Game Jr. (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
173 COMMENTS regarding Second Status Report by pltfs. (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
174 MOTION by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Gregory L. Coler to stay proceedings referred to Judge Paul Game Jr. (cek) Modified on 05/21/1991 (Entered: 04/29/1991)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 32 of 146

03/23/1990
03/23/1990
03/26/1990 03/27/1990
03/27/1990
03/27/1990
03/27/1990 03/28/1990 03/30/1990 03/30/1990
03/30/1990 03/30/1990 04/02/1990 04/09/1990 04/10/1990 04/12/1990

175 MOTION by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Gregory L. Coler to extend time to object to payment of fees and costs of Monitors for the Period of February 1, 1990 through February 28, 1990 referred to Judge Paul Game Jr. (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
176 MOTION by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Gregory L. Coler to extend time to respond to Motion to Approve Hiring of Marian Bruin and Jana Thrope and to require advance payment into Court Registry referred to Judge Paul Game Jr. (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
177 SECOND SUPPLEMENT to Motion to Remove Monitors by defts. (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
178 ORDER granting [176−1] motion to extend time to respond to Motion to Approve Hiring of Marian Bruin and Jana Thrope and to require advance payment into Court Registry, set motion filing deadline for 4/9/90 ( Signed by Judge Paul Game Jr. ) (cek) Modified on 05/21/1991 (Entered: 04/29/1991)
179 ORDER granting [175−1] motion to extend time to object to payment of fees and costs of Monitors for the Period of February 1, 1990 through February 28, 1990, defts shall have 7 days from receipt of this order in which to object; denying [174−1] motion to stay proceedings; denying [171−1] motion to strike [168−1] remark (Third Status Report); denying [171−2] motion cancel status conference scheduled for 03/28/90; denying [146−1] motion to remove monitors Ferleger and Glenn [151−1] motion to require Defts to File an Amended Motion Remove Monitors (Motion) ( Signed by Judge Paul Game Jr. ) (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
180 Amended [176−1] motion to extend time to respond to Motion to Approve Hiring of Marian Bruin and Jana Thrope and to require advance payment into Court Registry amended to extend time by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Gregory L. Coler referred to Judge Paul Game Jr. (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
181 COMMENTS and Objections to Third Status Report by DEFTS. (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
EXHIBITS Volume I through IV presented at Evidentiary Hearing. Filed under separate cover. (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
REGISTRY FUNDS received in the amount of $60,000, Receipt #43881. (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
182 ORDER denying [162−1] Appellant/Petitioner's motion to stay proceedings in the lower Court. Petitioner's application for a writ of mandamus is DENIED. (Entered/USCA/03/27/90/Notified. MFR−98, D257.) (lgl) Modified on 05/21/1991 (Entered: 04/30/1991)
183 ORDER: The Motion of Appellants to expedite the case is GRANTED. (Entered/USCA/03/27/90/Notified.) (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
184 ORDER: Motion of Appellee/Respondent to strike the emergency motion to stay proceedings in the lower court and the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. (Entered/USCA/03/27/90/Notified.) MFR−98/D−256. (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
185 REQUEST for an evidentiary hearing on DEFTS Motion to Remove Monitors, by PLTFS. (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
186 SECOND QUARTER Budget Review from Office of the Monitor. (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
187 RESPONSE by Fla Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Gregory L. Coler to [170−1] motion to approve hiring of Marian Bruin and Jana Thorpe (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
188 ORDER: Payment is APPROVED in the amount requested and the Clerk shall pay the sum of $23,162.42 from the Registry of the Court to the Office of the Monitor within 20 days from the date of this order for fees and expenses for the monthly period of February 1 through February 28, 1990. ( Signed by Judge Paul Game Jr. ) (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 33 of 146

04/16/1990 04/18/1990
04/24/1990
04/24/1990 04/24/1990 04/24/1990 04/27/1990 04/27/1990 05/07/1990 05/07/1990
05/10/1990 05/14/1990 05/17/1990 05/17/1990 05/18/1990 05/22/1990
05/30/1990

Certified copies of notice of appeal, judgment/order under appeal, and docket transmitted to USCA: (lgl) (Entered: 05/21/1991)
189 ORDER denying [170−1] motion to approve hiring of Marian Bruin and Jana Thorpe denying [170−2] motion to require advance payment into court registry with leave to renew if PLTFS are unable, within 20 days from the date of this Order, to approve an individual from the DEFTS' list. ( Signed by Judge Paul Game Jr. ) (lgl) Modified on 05/21/1991 (Entered: 04/30/1991)
190 ORDER: Upon consideration of the attached request for payment of fees and expenses for the office of the Monitor, it is hereby ORDERED that any party having any objection to such payment shall file such objection within 7 days from receipt of this ORDER. ( Signed by Judge Paul Game Jr. ) (lgl) Modified on 05/21/1991 (Entered: 04/30/1991)
191 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Dick Bradley, Gregory L. Coler from the Order entered on 03/26/90, Doc. No. 179. Certificate of Readiness due on 5/9/90 (lgl) Modified on 04/30/1991 (Entered: 04/30/1991)
TRANSMITTAL LETTER to USCA forwarding certified copy of notice of appeal, docket entries. (Order appealing from USCA). (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
APPEAL INFORMATION SHEET sent to Appellant. (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
192 WORKPLAN AND BUDGET for July 1, 1990 − June 30, 1991 by Office of the Monitor. (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
193 ORDER: Parties shall file any comments and objections to the workplan on or before May 8, 1990. ( Signed by Judge Paul Game Jr. ) (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
194 JOINT MOTION to extend time to file comments and objections to the Workplan and Budget for the period of July 1, 1990 to June 30, 1991 by DEFTS. (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
195 ORDER granting [194−1] joint motion to extend time to file comments and objections to the Workplan and Budget for the period of July 1, 1990 to June 30, 1991. In the event that this matter is not resolved by stipulation filed on or before May 15, 1990, the parties shall file by May 15, 1990 any comments or objections to the Monitor's proposed Budget and Workplan. No further continuances will be granted. If the Court does not receive an executed agreement, a hearing will be held on May 17, 1990 at 3:30 p.m. ( Signed by Judge Paul Game Jr. ) (lgl) Modified on 05/21/1991 (Entered: 04/30/1991)
196 APPEAL INFORMATION SHEET returned by Appellants. All necessary transcripts are already on file with the district court. (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
197 NOTICE by Fla. Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Dick Bradley, Gregory L. Coler of filing stipulation concerning pending issues by DEFTS. Proposed unsigned stipulation attached. (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
198 STIPULATION by the parties concerning pending issues. (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
199 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS on 03/28/90 before Judge Paul Game. re: Status Conference. (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
200 ORDER re: Stipulation regarding pending issues. (See lengthy order for details.) ( Signed by Judge Paul Game Jr. ) (lgl) Modified on 05/21/1991 (Entered: 04/30/1991)
201 ORDER for payment of fees and expenses for Office of the Monitor. Payment is approved in the amount requested and the Clerk shall pay the sum of $19,584.7l from the Registry of the Court within 20 days from the date of this order. ( Signed by Judge Paul Game Jr. ) (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
202 ORDER that all parties shall file within 10 days responses to the request of the Office of the Monitor for access to DEFTS' records regarding abuse and neglect matters. ( Signed by Judge Paul Game Jr. ) (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 34 of 146

06/01/1990 06/08/1990 06/11/1990 06/12/1990
06/14/1990 06/14/1990 06/14/1990 07/02/1990 07/02/1990 07/03/1990
08/02/1990 08/02/1990
08/02/1990
08/02/1990 08/03/1990

203 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Judge Paul Game Jr. for all further proceedings. ( signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges ) (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
204 MOTION by Fla. Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Dick Bradley, Gregory L. Coler to extend time to respond to the Order dated 05/29/90 regarding inspection of abuse/neglect reporting information by the Monitors referred to Judge Paul Game Jr. (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
205 RESPONSE by Fla. Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memorial , Dick Bradley, Gregory L. Coler to [202−1] order re: Monitor's request for access to abuse/neglect reports. (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
206 ORDER: Upon consideration of the attached request for payment of fees and expenses for the Office of the Monitor, it is hereby ORDERED that any party having any objection to such payment shall file such objection within seven days from receipt of this Order. ( Signed by Judge Paul Game Jr. ) (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
207 NOTICE by Fla. Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Dick Bradley, Gregory L. Coler of filing affidavit of George Hinchliffe; Affidavit attached. (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
208 RESPONSE by PLTFS to [206−1] order re: request of Office of the Monitor for access to DEFT's records regarding abuse and neglect matters. (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
209 ORDER granting [204−1] motion to extend time to respond to the Order dated 05/29/90 regarding inspection of abuse/neglect reporting information by the Monitors. DEFTS shall have until and including 6/12/90 to respond as directed by the 5/19/90 Order. ( Signed by Judge Paul Game Jr. ) (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
210 JOINT MOTION by parties to extend time to file briefs on class definition. Letter sent with motion advising that Attorney Talenfeld has also signed motion and will forward a copy under separate cover. Referred to Judge Paul Game Jr. (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
COPY of Joint Motion for extension of time to file briefs on class definition with Attorney Talenfeld's signature received. (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
211 ORDER: Upon consideration of the attached request for payment of fees and expenses for the Office of the Monitor, it is hereby ORDERED that any party having any objection to such payment shall file such objection within seven days from receipt of this Order. ( Signed by Judge Paul Game Jr. ) (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
212 NOTICE of Hearing: setting status conference for 4:00 9/13/90 before Judge William T. Hodges. s/JG/8/2/90/Notified. (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
213 ORDER: It is ordered that payment is APPROVED in the amount requested and the Clerk shall pay the sum of $39,03l.98 from the Registry of the Court to the Office of the Monitor within 20 days from the date of this Order for fees and expenses incurred as shown in the attached consolidated monthly statement for the period of 5/1/90 to 5/3l/90. ( Signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges ) (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
214 ORDER: Upon consideration of the attached request for payment of fees and expenses for the office of the Monitor, it is hereby ORDERED that any party having any objection to such payment shall file such ojection within ten days from the receipt of this Order. ( Signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges ) (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
215 MOTION by DEFTS to extend time to deposit money into the Registry of the Court. (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
216 ORDER: It is ordered that payment is APPROVED in the amount requested and that the Clerk shall pay the sum of $19,860.15 from the Registry of the Court to the Office of the Monitor within 20 days from the date of this Order for fees and expenses incurred as shown in the attached Consolidated Monthly Statement for the period April 1, 1990 through April 30, 1990. ( Signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 35 of 146

08/03/1990
08/03/1990 08/13/1990 08/15/1990 08/24/1990 09/05/1990 09/17/1990 09/18/1990 09/18/1990 09/18/1990
09/18/1990 09/27/1990 09/28/1990 10/09/1990 10/24/1990 10/30/1990 11/01/1990 11/01/1990 11/05/1990

) (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
217 BY DIRECTION OF THE COURT granting [215−1] motion to extend time to deposit money into the Registry of the Court. DEFTS shall have to and including 8/11/90, in which to deposit the money. (s/JFG/8/3/90/Notified.) (lgl) Modified on 05/21/1991 (Entered: 04/30/1991)
218 STIPULATION by parties for payment of PLTF'S Attorneys' Fees and Costs for litigation and monitoring activity by Attorneys for DEFTS, with order incorporated. (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
219 SECOND MOTION by DEFTS Second to extend time to deposit money into the Court Registry. (lgl) Modified on 05/21/1991 (Entered: 04/30/1991)
220 MOTION by DEFTS to continue the Status Conference. (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
221 ORDER granting [220−1] motion to continue the Status Conference., set status conference for 4:00 9/18/90 ( Signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges ) (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
222 ASSESSMENT report for compliance with Paragraph 37 of the consent decree by HRS. (Filed in separate cover) (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
223 MEMORANDUM by PLTFS regarding class definition and length of DEFT'S obligations to class members. This MEMO complies with [200−1] order. (lgl) Modified on 05/21/1991 (Entered: 04/30/1991)
MATERIALS for status conference from the Office of the Monitor: Purpose of Decree; Key issues; Comments; Background MEMO. (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
224 MEMORANDUM by DEFTS regarding class definition and length of DEFT'S obligation to class members. Complies with [200−1] order. (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
225 ENTRY OF WITHDRAWAL: Pursuant to the stipulation of parties, the appeals in the above referenced cases were dismissed on this 14th day of September, 1990. By USCA/ Brenda McConnell/By direction for the Court. (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
227 Minute entry before Judge Hodges on 9/18/90 re: status conference. Court Reporter: Carol Jacobs (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
226 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM by DEFTS concerning the definition of the PLTF'S class and the duration of DEFT'S obligation. This complies with [202−1] order (lgl) Modified on 05/21/1991 (Entered: 04/30/1991)
228 RESPONSE by PLTF to [226−1] supplemental memorandum, [224−1] memorandum re: law concerning class definition and length of DEFTS' obligation to class members. (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
229 NOTICE of change of address as to Deborah Whisnant, attorney for the Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities, Inc. (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
230 NOTICE of supplemental authority Class Definition Issue, by DEFTS with attachments. (lgl) Modified on 05/21/1991 (Entered: 04/30/1991)
231 ORDER: It is GRANTED that the semi−annual report of the Office of the Monitor presently due 11/1/90 is now due 11/20/90. ( Signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges ) (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
232 COMMENTS regarding the fourth status report of the monitors, by PLTF. (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
234 NOTICE by PLTF of agreement with Monitor's July, August, and September 1990 bills. (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
233 RESPONSE by DEFTS to PLTF'S Notice of agreement with Monitors' July, August, and September, 1990 bills. (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 36 of 146

11/08/1990 11/08/1990 11/08/1990 11/08/1990
11/09/1990 11/15/1990 11/19/1990
11/19/1990
11/19/1990
11/20/1990 12/04/1990 12/05/1990 12/12/1990

235 ORDER: Upon consideration of the attached request for payment of fees and expenses for the Office of the Monitor, it is hereby ORDERED that any party having any objection to such payment shall file such objection within seven days from receipt of this order. ( Signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges ) (lgl) Modified on 05/21/1991 (Entered: 04/30/1991)
236 ORDER: Upon consideration of the attached request for payment of fees and expenses for the office of the Monitor, it is hereby ORDERED that any party having any objection to such payment shall file such objection within seven days from receipt of this Order. ( Signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges ) (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
237 ORDER: Upon consideration of the attached request for payment of fees and expenses for the office of the Monitor, it is hereby ORDERED that any party having any objection to such payment shall file such objection within seven days from receipt of this Order. ( Signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges ) (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
238 ORDER: It is approved in the amount requested and that the Clerk shall pay the sum of $20,790.79 from the Registry of the Court to the Office of the Monitor within 20 days from the date of this Order for fees and expenses incurred as shown in the attached consolidated monthly statement for the period of June 1, 1990 through June 31, 1990. ( Signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges ) (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
LETTER from Attorney Whisnant advising of change of address. (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
239 RESPONSE by DEFTS to [232−1] PLTF'S comments regarding fourth status report of the Monitors. (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
240 ORDER: It is ordered that payment is approved in the amount requested and that the Clerk shall pay the sum of $31,479.49 from the Registry of the Court to the Office of the Monitor within 20 days from the date of this order for fees and expenses incurred as shown in the attached consolidated monthly statement for the period of 9/1/90 through 9/30/90. ( Signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges ) (lgl) Modified on 05/21/1991 (Entered: 04/30/1991)
241 ORDER: It is ordered that payment is approved in the amount requested and that the Clerk shall pay the sum of $23,885.26 from the Registry of the Court to the Office of the Monitor within 20 days from the date of this order for fees and expenses incurred as shown in the attached consolidated monthly statement for the period of 7/1/90 through 7/31/90. ( Signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges ) (lgl) Modified on 05/21/1991 (Entered: 04/30/1991)
242 ORDER: It is ordered that payment is approved in the amount requested and that the Clerk shall pay the sum of $8,114.25 from the Registry of the Court to the Office of the Monitor within 20 days from the date of this order for fees and expenses incurred as shown in the attached consolidated monthly statement for the period of 8/1/90 through 8/31/90. ( Signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges ) (lgl) Modified on 05/21/1991 (Entered: 04/30/1991)
243 FOURTH STATUS REPORT by Monitor. (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
245 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS on 09/18/90 for status conference before Judge William T. Hodges. Court Reporter: Carol Jacobs. (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
244 ORDER: Re: Payment of fees and expenses for Office of the Monitor; It is Ordred that any party having any objection to such payment shall file such objection within seven days from receipt of this order. ( Signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges ) (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
246 ORDER: Upon due consideration, the definition of the PLTF class is hereby clarified and shall be deemed to include all persons confined at GPW into a community treatment facility on or after that date. The Court RESERVES RULING on the issue of the length of DEFTS obligations to the class, subject to the right of any party to move that the case be closed and for a determination that

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 37 of 146

12/14/1990 12/19/1990 12/24/1990 12/24/1990 12/26/1990 01/02/1991
01/03/1991 01/08/1991
01/14/1991 01/14/1991 01/14/1991 01/17/1991 01/18/1991 01/22/1991 01/22/1991 01/23/1991 01/24/1991 01/28/1991

DEFTS have achieved substantial compliance with the requirements of the consent decree. The request by the monitor for an order granting access to the central abuse registry is DENIED, without prejudice to being reasserted upon the failure of a good faith effort to negotiate and a showing of need for such information by the Monitor. ( Signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges ) (lgl) Modified on 05/21/1991 (Entered: 04/30/1991)
247 MOTION by DEFTS to extend time to object to the Office of the Monitors' bill for the month of October, 1990. (lgl) Modified on 05/21/1991 (Entered: 04/30/1991)
248 MOTION by DEFTS for reconsideration of [246−1] order re: class definition issue. (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
250 NOTICE by DEFTS of non−objection with Monitors' October, 1990 bill. (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
251 REQUEST by DEFTS for oral argument on DEFTS' Motion to Reconsider class definition issue. (lgl) Modified on 05/21/1991 (Entered: 04/30/1991)
COPY of letter to Assistant Secretary of ADAMH sent to Judge Hodges. (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
249 ORDER: It is ordered that any party having any objection to payment of fees and expenses for the Office of the Monitor shall file within seven days from receipt of this Order any objections. ( Signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges ) (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
252 AMICUS MOTION by Advocacy Center to extend time to serve response to DEFTS' Motion for Reconsideration. (lgl) Modified on 05/21/1991 (Entered: 04/30/1991)
253 ORDER granting [252−1] Amicus motion to extend time to serve response to DEFTS' Motion for Reconsideration., Response to motion reset to 1/18/91 for [248−1] motion for reconsideration of [246−1] order re: class definition issue. ( Signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges ) (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
254 MOTION by PLTFS to adopt recommendations of the Office of the Monitor. (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
255 AFFIDAVIT of James K. Green in support of hours and expenses. (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
256 RESPONSE by PLTFS to [248−1] motion for reconsideration of [246−1] order re: class definition (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
257 NOTICE by DEFTS of non−objection to Monitors' November 1990 bill. (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
258 JOINT MOTION by parties for payment of PLTFS' attorney's fees and costs for litigation and monitoring activity during the period from 5/7/90 through 9/4/90. (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
259 NOTICE by Amicus Advocacy Center of filing transcript (excerpt) of Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment before Magistrate Game on July 19, 1989. Court Reporter: Elizabeth Gotch. Transcript attached. (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
260 RESPONSE by Amicus (Advocacy Center) to [248−1] motion for reconsideration of [246−1] order re: class definition issue.(lgl) Modified on 05/21/1991 (Entered: 04/30/1991)
COPY of letter to Mr. Ferleger from HRS. (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
261 MOTION by DEFTS to extend time to object to PLTFS' Motion to adopt recommendations of the Office of the Monitors. Proposed order attached. (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
262 ORDER granting [261−1] motion to extend time to object to PLTFS' Motion to adopt recommendations of the Office of the Monitors. (s/JG/1/28/91/Notified.) (lgl) (Entered: 04/30/1991)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 38 of 146

01/30/1991 01/30/1991 01/30/1991 02/11/1991 02/15/1991 02/15/1991 02/25/1991 02/25/1991 02/26/1991 03/05/1991 03/20/1991 04/01/1991
04/01/1991
04/01/1991
04/12/1991 04/18/1991

263 ORDER: Payment is approved in the amount requested and Clerk shall pay $24,400.88 from the Registry of the Court to the Office of the Monitor within 20 days from the date of this Order for the month of October. ( Signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges ) (lgl) (Entered: 05/02/1991)
264 ORDER: Payment is approved in the amount requested and the Clerk is directed to pay $10,405.56 from the Registry of the Court to the Office of the Monitor for the month of November within 20 days from the date of this Order. ( Signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges ) (lgl) (Entered: 05/02/1991)
265 RESPONSE by DEFTS in opposition to [254−1] motion to adopt recommendations of the Office of the Monitor, and Monitors' request for status conference dated 1/14/91. (lgl) (Entered: 05/02/1991)
COPY of letter to Dr. Ivor Groves. (lgl) (Entered: 05/02/1991)
266 RESPONSE/STATEMENT of non−objection by DEFTS to [254−1] motion to adopt recommendations of the Office of Monitor. (lgl) (Entered: 05/02/1991)
267 MOTION by DEFTS for substitution of DEFT Secretary of Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. (lgl) (Entered: 05/02/1991)
268 MOTION by Miller Frank Johnson for leave to file reply to DEFTS' response in opposition to PLTF'S Motion to adopt recommendations of the office of the monitors and monitors request for status conference dated 1/14/91. (lgl) (Entered: 05/02/1991)
269 JOINT MOTION by parties Stipulation re: First Community Audit. Proposed order incorporated. (lgl) (Entered: 05/02/1991)
ENDORSED ORDER approving [258−1] stipulation for payment of PLTFS' attorney's fees and costs for litigation and monitoring activity during the period from 5/7/90 through 9/4/90. (Signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges) (lw) (Entered: 04/10/1992)
270 RESPONSE by Miller Frank Johnson to [268−1] motion for leave to file reply to DEFTS' response in opposition to PLTF'S Motion to adopt recommendations of the office of the monitors and monitors request for status conference dated 1/14/91. (lgl) (Entered: 05/02/1991)
#63102, $75,000. Money to be deposited into Registry funds.(lgl) Modified on 05/21/1991 (Entered: 05/02/1991)
271 ORDER: Upon consideration of the attached request for payment of fees and expenses for the Office of the Monitor, it is hereby ORDERED that any party having any objection to such payment shall file such objection within seven days from receipt of this Order. ( Signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges ) (lgl) (Entered: 05/02/1991)
272 ORDER: Upon consideration of the attached request for payment of fees and expenses for the Office of the Monitor, it is hereby ORDERED that any party having any objection to such payment shall file such objection within seven days from receipt of this Order. ( Signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges ) (lgl) Modified on 05/21/1991 (Entered: 05/02/1991)
273 ORDER: Upon consideration of the attached reqeust for payment of fees and expenses for the Office of the Monitor, it is hereby ORDERED that any party having any objection to such payment shall file such objection within seven days from receipt of this Order. ( Signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges ) (lgl) (Entered: 05/02/1991)
274 NOTICE by DEFTS of non−objection to payment of fees and expenses with reservation of right to object, or, alternatively, Motion for extension of time to object to support/secretarial charges of Office of the Monitor. (lgl) (Entered: 05/02/1991)
279 STIPULATION for payment of pltf's attorney's fees and costs for litigation and monitoring activity during the period from 8/6/90 through 1/10/91 by defendant Fl Dept Of Health/re, defendant G. Pierce Wood Memor, defendant Dick Bradley,

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 39 of 146

04/25/1991 04/25/1991 04/25/1991 04/25/1991 04/25/1991 04/25/1991
04/25/1991
04/25/1991
05/09/1991
05/31/1991 06/04/1991 06/10/1991 06/17/1991 06/19/1991
06/21/1991 06/27/1991 06/28/1991

plaintiff Miller Frank Johnson, defendant Gregory L. Coler . (kit) (Entered: 05/13/1991)
275 Consolidated monthly statment for the period of 3/1/91 − 3/31/91 by Office of the Monitor. (kit) (Entered: 05/13/1991)
276 Consolidated monthly statement for the period of 12/1/90 − 12/31/90 by Office of the Monitor. (kit) (Entered: 05/13/1991)
277 Consolidated monthly statement for the period of 2/1/91 to 2/28/91 by Office of the Monitor. (kit) (Entered: 05/13/1991)
278 Consolidated monthly statement for the period of 1/1/91 − 1/31/91 by Office of the Monitor. (kit) (Entered: 05/13/1991)
280 ORDER: It is ordered that any party having any objection to payment shall file objections within 7 days from receipt of this order ( Signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges ) (kit) (Entered: 05/13/1991)
281 ORDER: Payment to the Monitor's Office for fees and expenses fo rthe month of 12/1/90 through 12/30/90 is approved in the amount of $20,578.92. The Clerk is directed to pay this sum from the Court registry. ( Signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges ) (kit) (Entered: 05/13/1991)
282 ORDER: Payment to the Monitor's Office for fees and expenses from 1/1/91 through 1/31/91 is approved in the amount of $37,771.14. The Clerk is directed to pay this sum from the Court registry. ( Signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges ) (kit) (Entered: 05/13/1991)
283 ORDER: Payment to the Monitor's Office for fees and expenses from 2/1/91 to 2/28/91 is approved in the amount of $17,106.68. The Clerk is directed to pay this sum from the Court registry. ( Signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges ) (kit) (Entered: 05/13/1991)
284 NOTICE of non−objection to payment of fees and expenses with reservation of right to object and subject to agreement concerning technical assistance by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Gregory L. Coler (kit) (Entered: 05/13/1991)
Letter from Office of the Monitor with proposed order attached. (kit) (Entered: 06/06/1991)
CASE REFERRED to Judge Charles R. Wilson for discovery. (cek) (Entered: 06/04/1991)
285 NOTICE of Non−Objection to Monitor's proposals for revision of payment process, by Miller Frank Johnson (amw) Modified on 06/17/1993 (Entered: 06/11/1991)
286 MOTION by Miller Frank Johnson with memorandum in support to authorize monitor's proposals for revision of payment process (kit) (Entered: 06/18/1991)
287 ORDER regarding payment of fees and expenses for office of the monitor. (See attached request for payment). Ordered that any party having any objection to such payment shall file such objection within seven (7) days from receipt of this Order. ( Signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges ) (amw) (Entered: 06/19/1991)
288 ORDERed that any party have any objection to such payment shall file such objection within 7 days from receipt of this Order. ( Signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges ) (kit) (Entered: 06/21/1991)
289 MOTION by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Gregory L. Coler to extend time to respond to motion to authorize monitors' proposals for revision of payment process (kit) (Entered: 06/28/1991)
290 ORDER granting [289−1] motion to extend time to respond to motion to authorize monitors' proposals for revision of payment process ( Signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges ) (kit) (Entered: 06/28/1991)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 40 of 146

06/28/1991
07/01/1991 07/03/1991 07/03/1991 07/12/1991 07/12/1991 07/15/1991
07/15/1991
07/16/1991 07/19/1991
07/29/1991
07/31/1991 07/31/1991 08/02/1991 08/02/1991 08/06/1991 08/08/1991

291 NOTICE of non−objection to payment ot monitors for fees and expenses with reservation of right to object and subject to agreement concerning technical assistance by Fl. Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Gregory L. Coler (kit) (Entered: 07/01/1991)
292 STIPULATION for payment of pltf's attorneys' fees and costs for litigation and monitoring activity by defendants and plaintiffs with proposed order incorporated (kit) (Entered: 07/01/1991)
293 NOTICE of non−objection to payment of fees and expenses with reservation of right to object and preservation of objection to future billing for previous months' activities by Defendants. (kit) (Entered: 07/08/1991)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [292−1] stipulation for payment of pltfs' attorneys' fees and costs for litigation and monitoring activity ( Signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges ) (kit) (Entered: 07/08/1991)
294 Consolidated monthly statement for the period 4/1/91 − 4/30/91 by the Monitor. (kit) (Entered: 07/15/1991)
295 Consolidated monthly statement for the month of 5/1/91 to 5/31/91 by the Monitor. (kit) (Entered: 07/15/1991)
296 ORDER: Payment is approved and the Clerk is directed to pay from the registry $22,059.71 to the Office of the Monitor within 20 days from the date of this Order for fees and expenses incurred from 4/1/91 to 4/30/91. ( Signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges ) (kit) (Entered: 07/15/1991)
297 ORDER: Payment is approved in the amount of $29,891.09 and the Clerk is directed to pay from the Registry of the Court within 30 days from the date of this order to the Office of the Monitor for the month of 5/1/91 to 5/31/91. ( Signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges ) (kit) (Entered: 07/15/1991)
298 MOTION by Miller Frank Johnson to extend time to respond to motion to authorize monitors' proposal for revision of payment process (kit) (Entered: 07/17/1991)
299 ORDER granting [298−1] motion to extend time to respond to motion to authorize monitors' proposal for revision of payment process, Response to motion reset to 7/31/91 for [286−1] motion to authorize monitor's proposals for revision of payment process ( Signed by John F. Gay ) (kit) (Entered: 07/19/1991)
300 ORDER: payment is approved in the amount requested and that the Clerk shall pay the sum of $25,416.10 from the Registry of the Court to the office of the monitor within 20 days fromt he date of this order for fees and expenses incurred as shown in the attached consolidated monthly statment for the period of 3/1/91 to 3/31/91. ( Signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges ) (kit) (Entered: 07/29/1991)
301 NOTICE of filing quarterly report by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Gregory L. Coler. Document filed in separate cover. (kit) (Entered: 07/31/1991)
302 MOTION by Miller Frank Johnson to extend time to respond to motion to authorize monitor's proposal for revision of payment process (kit) (Entered: 08/01/1991)
303 ORDER granting [302−1] motion to extend time to respond to motion to authorize monitor's proposal for revision of payment process (signed by JFG) (kit) (Entered: 08/02/1991)
304 RESPONSE by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Gregory L. Coler to [254−1] motion to adopt recommendations of the Office of the Monitor. (kit) (Entered: 08/05/1991)
Correspondence from the Monitor, David Ferleger to Judge Hodges. (kit) (Entered: 08/06/1991)
305 ORDER granting [286−1] motion to authorize monitor's proposals for revision of payment process. Beginning July 31, 1991, the Clerk shall pay $20,000 per month

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 41 of 146

08/12/1991 09/23/1991 09/23/1991 09/30/1991 09/30/1991
10/01/1991 10/28/1991 11/20/1991
12/10/1991 12/30/1991 01/17/1992 01/27/1992
02/04/1992

to the Office of the Monitor on or about the last day of each month from monies deposited in the registry of the Court which shall be credited against any fees and costs which this Court may award to the office of the Monitor. Within 20 days of the close of each quarter, beginning 7/1/91, the Office of the Monitor will account for the funds in a filing with te Court and defts shall have 7 days from receipt fo the Court Order to file any objections. This order shall be effective for fiscal years 1992 and 1993. ( Signed by Judge Wm. T. Hodges ) (kit) (Entered: 08/09/1991)
NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT to the Honorable Judge Harvey E. Schlesinger . Notice to Counsel. (alh) (Entered: 08/12/1991)
306 CONSOLIDATED Monthly Statement for the period beginning June 1 to June 30, 1991. (cek) (Entered: 09/23/1991)
307 ORDER It is ordered that any party having an objection to Office of the Monitor's payment shall file that objection within 7 days of the date of this order.( Signed by Judge Harvey E. Schlesinger ) (cek) (Entered: 09/23/1991)
308 EMERGENCY MOTION by Miller Frank Johnson, Lloyd Koger, Gail Bjerkenes, Sandra Guinn, Daniel Fennell to adopt recommendations of Office of the Monitor regarding budget cuts (cek) (Entered: 10/01/1991)
309 STIPULATION for Payment of Pltfs Attorneys' Fees and costs for Litigation and Monitoring Activity by defendant Fl Dept Of Health/re, defendant G. Pierce Wood Memor, defendant Dick Bradley, plaintiff Miller Frank Johnson, defendant Gregory L. Coler, plaintiff Lloyd Koger, plaintiff Gail Bjerkenes, plaintiff Sandra Guinn, plaintiff Daniel Fennell . (cek) (Entered: 10/01/1991)
310 MOTION by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Gregory L. Coler to extend time to respond to Monitors Request for Payment of Fees and Expenses and Court Order entered September 23, 1991 (cek) (Entered: 10/02/1991)
311 NOTICE of Non−objection to Payment of Fees and Expenses for Office of Monitor by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Gregory L. Coler (cek) (Entered: 10/30/1991)
312 ORDER that: (1) Payment is approved in the amount requested; (2) the Clerk shall pay the sum of $47,022.93 from the Registry of the Court to the Office of the Monitor within 15 days from the date of this Order for fees and expenses incurred as shown in the attached Consolidated Monthly Statement for the period 06/01/91 through 06/30/91. The Clerk is directed to make the checks payable as follows: David Ferleger, $39,787.37; Linda Glenn, $2,895.63; Dorothy Rowe, $4,339.93.( Signed by Judge Harvey E. Schlesinger ) (lw) (Entered: 11/22/1991)
313 Correspondence from David Ferleger dated December 3, l99l regarding resignation as co−Monitor. (lw) (Entered: 12/12/1991)
314 NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT to the Honorable Judge Anne C. Conway . Notice to Counsel. (rjc) (Entered: 12/30/1991)
315 STIPULATION by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Miller Frank Johnson, Gregory L. Coler, Lloyd Koger, Gail Bjerkenes, Sandra Guinn, Daniel Fennell for payment of plaintiffs' attorney fees and costs for litigation and monitoring activity ; Proposed order. (lw) (Entered: 01/17/1992)
316 STIPULATION reducing the number of monitors and modifying the monitors' fee payment procedure by defendant Fl Dept Of Health/re, defendant G. Pierce Wood Memor, defendant Dick Bradley, plaintiff Miller Frank Johnson, defendant Gregory L. Coler, Office of Monitor, plaintiff Lloyd Koger, plaintiff Gail Bjerkenes, plaintiff Sandra Guinn, plaintiff Daniel Fennell; exhibit attached; proposed order. (lw) (Entered: 01/28/1992)
ENDORSED ORDER approving [315−1] joint motion for payment of plaintiffs' attorney fees and costs for litigation and monitoring activity (Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway) (lw) (Entered: 02/04/1992)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 42 of 146

02/04/1992
02/13/1992 02/27/1992 03/02/1992

317 ORDER entered that: 1. The Stipulation Reducing the Number of Monitors and Modifying the Monitors' Fee Payment Procedure, assented to by the parties and the Office of the Monitor, is hereby confirmed; 2. Effective December 31, 1991, the number of monitors in this case shall be reduced from three to two; Linda L. Glenn and Dorothy J. Rowe shall continue the responsibilities of the Office of the Monitor in accordance with the Stipulation dated May 14, 1990, and the Order dated May 17, 1990; 3. Effective immediately, Linda L. Glenn will undertake all fiscal responsibility as required by the Orders dated May 17, 1990, and August 8, 1991; At the same time, Dorothy J. Rowe will assume the administrative responsibilities for the Office of the Monitor; 4. Reduction in the number of monitors in no way alters the responsibilities of the Office of the Monitor as established by the Consent Decree and the Order dated May 17, 1990, except for paragraphs 1, 4, 8 and 25 which are modified in accordance herewith; 5. The co−monitors shall continue to submit to the parties a monthly statement of fees and costs; 6. The clerk of court shall, without further order, disburse to the Office of the Monitor, care of Linda L. Glenn, 3201 East Eva Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85028, on or about the last day of each month, $20,000.00 per month from monies deposited in the court registry; such disbursements shall be credited against fees and costs which the court may award to the Office of the Monitor; 7. The parties shall have the right to object to any entry in the co−monitors' monthly statements and shall attempt to resolve such billing disputes directly with the Office of the Monitor; 8. The Office of the Monitor shall continue to submit to the parties and to file with the court, within twenty days of the close of each quarter, a statement reconciling fees and costs incurred during the preceding three months with disbursements made to the Office of the Monitor during that period; 9. The court shall issue an order pertaining to the co−monitors' quarterly reconciliation; The parties shall raise objections, if any, to entries contained in the quarterly statement or order based thereon within ten days of receipt of the order; Additionally, the parties shall have the right to have the court resolve disputes as to monthly statements which were not resolved by agreement between the parties and the co−monitors; 10. The Defendants shall have the right to object within seven days of the date of receipt of the Order on the Office of the Monitor's First Quarterly Reconciliation Statement to entries contained in that Statement; 11. The order in no way affects obligations related to the Order dated May 17, 1990, which may be pending currently or which may arise in the future. (Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway) (lw) (Entered: 02/05/1992)
318 ORDER entered that: 1. Unless objection is made to this Order within ten (l0) days of the date of this Order, the Court will instruct the Clerk of the Court to pay the Office of the Monitors the sum of $20,000 for the month of November, l99l, the sum of $20,000 for the month of December, l99l and the sum of $20,000 for the month of January l992, for a total payment of $60,000; All such payments will be made pursuant to the Order of this Court revising the method of paying the Office of the Monitor, dated August 8, l99l (Dkt. 305), and the Order of this Court confirming the Stipulation reducing the number of monitors and modifying the monitors' fee payment procedure, dated February 4, l992 (Dkt. 317); 2. Disbursements made pursuant to this Order shall be made payable to the Office of the Monitor, care of Linda L. Glenn, 3201 East Eva Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85028. (Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway) (lw) (Entered: 02/14/1992)
319 Second Quarter Reconciliation submitted by the Office of the Monitor; attachments. (lw) (Entered: 02/28/1992)
320 ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that The Clerk of the Court shall pay the Office of the Monitor the sum of $20,000 for the month of November 1991, the sum of $20,000 for the month of December, 1991 and the sum of $20,000 for the month of January 1992, for a total payment of $60,000; All such payments will be made pursuant to the Order of this Court revising the method of paying the Office of the Monitor, dated August 8, 1991 (Dkt. 305), and the Order of this Court confirming the Stipulation reducing the number of monitors and modifying the monitors' fee payment procedure, dated February 4, 1992 (Dkt. 317); Disbursements made pursuant to this Order shall be made payable to the Office of the Monitor, care of Linda L. Glenn, 3201 East Eva Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85028. (Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway) (lw) (Entered: 03/03/1992)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 43 of 146

03/02/1992 03/26/1992 04/03/1992 04/16/1992 04/21/1992 04/22/1992
04/23/1992 05/07/1992 05/11/1992 05/11/1992 05/11/1992 05/11/1992 06/22/1992 06/29/1992 06/29/1992
07/06/1992

Correspondence by Linda L. Glenn, Dorothy J. Rowe, dated 01/24/92 to Hon. Anne C. Conway regarding payments to the Office of the Monitor, and specifying the current mailing addresses for the Office of the Monitor. (lw) (Entered: 03/03/1992)
Registry Funds in the amount of $87,500.00 (State of Florida check − Document no. H2000 197683) received on 03/26/92. (lw) (Entered: 03/30/1992)
321 STIPULATION for attorney fees , and costs for litigation , and monitoring activit by plaintiff Daniel Fennell, plaintiff Sandra Guinn, plaintiff Gail Bjerkenes, plaintiff Lloyd Koger, defendant Gregory L. Coler, plaintiff Miller Frank Johnson . (lw) (Entered: 04/06/1992)
322 First Quarter Reconciliation (dated 02/07/92) filed by Linda L. Glenn, Court Appointed Monitor. (lw) (Entered: 04/17/1992)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [269−1] joint motion Stipulation re: First Community Audit. ( Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway ) (sak) (Entered: 04/22/1992)
323 ORDER that the Office of the Monitor shall file and serve on all counsel of record, within 20 days of this order, an amended summary of expenses incurred and money advanced to the Office of the Monitor on a monthly basis, reflecting receipt of $20,000 for the month of 11/91 and $20,000 for the month of 12/91. The Office of the Monitor shall file with the Court, within 20 days of this order, the documentation and detail necessary to support the First Quarter Reconciliation summary page (Dkt. 322) filed 4/16/92. Alternately, the Office of the Monitor shall file and serve on counsel notice of the unavailability of such information. ( Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway ) (rjh) (Entered: 04/23/1992)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [321−1] stipulation for attorney fees granting [321−2] stipulation costs for litigation granting [321−3] stipulation monitoring activit granting [321−4] stipulation ( Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway ) (wlb) (Entered: 04/24/1992)
324 NOTICE of Change of Address. (lw) (Entered: 05/07/1992)
325 First Quarter Reconciliation (July 1, 1991 − September 30, 1991) submitted by Ralph E. Hughes for Linda L. Glenn, Court Appointed Monitor, with backup documentation. (lw) Modified on 05/12/1992 (Entered: 05/12/1992)
326 Second Quarter Reconciliation (October 1, 1991 − December 31, 1991) submitted by Ralph E. Hughes for Linda L. Glenn, Court Appointed Monitor (lw) Modified on 01/25/1993 (Entered: 05/12/1992)
327 Third Quarter Reconciliation (January 1, 1992 − March 31, 2992) submitted by Ralph E. Hughes for Linda L. Glenn, Court Appointed Monitor, with backup documentation. (lw) Modified on 05/12/1992 (Entered: 05/12/1992)
328 April 1992, Expenditures submitted by Ralph E. Hughes for Linda L. Glenn, Court Appointed Monitor, with backup documentation. (lw) Modified on 05/12/1992 (Entered: 05/12/1992)
329 NOTICE of Change of Address by Office of Monitor; all correspondence should be sent to: Dorothy J. Rowe, Office of the Monitor, 1238 Camellia Drive, Tallahassee, FL 32301, Telephone: 904−877−1988. (lw) (Entered: 06/22/1992)
330 NOTICE of possible emergency by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson (lw) (Entered: 06/29/1992)
331 STIPULATION for attorneys' fees and costs for litigation and monitoring activity by plaintiff Daniel Fennell, plaintiff Sandra Guinn, plaintiff Gail Bjerkenes, plaintiff Lloyd Koger, defendant Gregory L. Coler, Fl Dept Of Health/re, defendant G. Pierce Wood Memor, defendant Dick Bradley, plaintiff Miller Frank Johnson . (lw) (Entered: 06/29/1992)
332 NOTICE of appearance for Office of Monitor by Michael J. Dale (lw) (Entered: 07/06/1992)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 44 of 146

07/30/1992 08/12/1992 09/03/1992 09/14/1992 10/08/1992 11/18/1992 11/19/1992 11/20/1992 12/08/1992 01/07/1993 01/14/1993 01/14/1993
01/22/1993 01/25/1993 01/25/1993 01/25/1993
01/25/1993 02/08/1993 02/16/1993

333 Fourth Quarter Expenditures filed by Ralph E. Hughes, Chief Financial Officer. Attachments. (jlh) (Entered: 08/03/1992)
1st Quater amount $75,000. paid into the Registry. Receipt No. 81579 (jlh) (Entered: 08/13/1992)
334 NOTICE OF INTERIM REASSIGNMENT to Judge Unassigned docket. Notice to Counsel. (rjc) (Entered: 09/04/1992)
335 JOINT (STIPULATION) MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson for payment of plaintiffs' attorney fees , costs for litigation and monitoring activity (jlh) (Entered: 09/15/1992)
$75,000.00 paid into the registry. Receipt No. 85130 (jlh) (Entered: 10/08/1992)
336 FIRST quarter 1992−93 expenditures as well as the first quarter reconciliation (jlh) (Entered: 11/23/1992)
337 ORDER, reset status conference for 10:00 12/14/92 Scheduled for Judge Anne C. Conway ( Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway ) (jlh) (Entered: 11/23/1992)
338 NOTICE of change of address of attorney Michael J. Dale by Office of Monitor (jlh) (Entered: 11/23/1992)
339 NOTICE of Hearing: reset pretrial conference for 10:30 1/25/93 Scheduled for Judge Anne C. Conway (jlh) (Entered: 12/08/1992)
340 ORDER that the Clerk shall send a copy of two separate letters from Alliance for the Mentally ill of Manatee County to the Office fo the Monitor and all counsel of record. ( Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 01/07/1993)
341 MOTION (stipulation) by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Gregory L. Coler, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Miller Frank Johnson for attorney fees (jlh) (Entered: 01/14/1993)
341 STIPULATION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Gregory L. Coler, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Miller Frank Johnson for Costs for litigation and monitoring activity (jlh) (Entered: 01/14/1993)
ENDORSED ORDER granting and approving [309−1] stipulation for payment of attorneys fees and costs( Signed by Judge Harvey E. Schlesinger on November 19, 1991 ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 01/22/1993)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [267−1] motion for substitution of DEFT Secretary of Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. ( Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 01/25/1993)
ENDORSED ORDER granting (approving) [331−1] stipulation for attorneys' fees and costs for litigation and monitoring activity granting [331−2] stipulation ( Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 01/25/1993)
ENDORSED ORDER granting (approving) [335−1] joint motion for payment of plaintiffs' attorney fees; granting (approving) [335−2] joint motion costs for litigation and monitoring activity ( Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 01/25/1993)
ENDORSED ORDER granting (approving) [341−1] stipulation; granting (approving) [341−1] motion for attorney fees ( Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 01/25/1993)
342 SECOND Quarter Reconciliation − October 1, 1992 thru December 31, 1992 filed by Ralph E. Hughes for Linda L. Glenn Court appointed co−monitor (jlh) (Entered: 02/10/1993)
343 STIPULATION regarding exit criteria by plaintiff Daniel Fennell, plaintiff Sandra Guinn, plaintiff Gail Bjerkenes, plaintiff Lloyd Koger, notice only Office of Monitor, defendant Fl Dept Of Health/re, defendant G. Pierce Wood Memor, defendant Dick Bradley, plaintiff Miller Frank Johnson, defendant Robert Williams . NOTE: STRICKEN IN ERROR; REFILED SEE 1315 .Modified on 10/20/2009

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 45 of 146

02/16/1993 02/26/1993 02/26/1993 03/08/1993
03/08/1993
03/08/1993
03/08/1993 03/12/1993 03/24/1993 03/25/1993 03/25/1993 03/25/1993 03/25/1993 03/26/1993 04/05/1993

(JNB). (Entered: 02/16/1993)
344 JOINT STIPULATION regarding legal access by plaintiff Daniel Fennell et al and defendants and with approval of the office of the monitor STRICKEN PER COURT ORDER DATED 7/12/94(jlh) Modified on 07/12/1994 (Entered: 02/16/1993)
345 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Dorothy J. Rowe to accompany Stipulation regarding exit criteria &stipulation regarding legal access (jlh) (Entered: 02/26/1993)
346 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS on status conference hearing for date of 1/25/93 before Judge Anne C. Conway. (jlh) (Entered: 02/26/1993)
347 ORDER denying [248−1] motion for reconsideration of [246−1] order re: class definition issue; denying [254−1] motion to adopt recommendations of the Office of the Monitor; denying [268−1] motion for leave to file reply to DEFTS' response in opposition to PLTF'S Motion to adopt recommendations of the office of the monitors and monitors request for status conference dated 1/14/91; denying [308−1] motion to adopt recommendations of Office of the Monitor regarding budget cuts with leave to refile; ( Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 03/10/1993)
348 ORDER the parties shall denominate their stipulation for payment as a Joint motion for court approval of the payment of plaintiffs attorneys fees &costs for litigation and monitoring activity. Documents to filed by the Office of the monitor shall comply fully with the requirements of Local Rule 1.05 and 3.01(f) ( Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 03/10/1993)
349 ORDER the parties are directed to file and serve objections if any to the six quarterly reconciliions set forth no later than 6/15/93. All objections by a party shall be compiled and filed with the Court in a single document. (see order for reconciliations); The court reserves the right to resolve disputes regarding the quarterly reconciliation which are not resolved by agreement between the parties and the office of the monitor. ( Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 03/10/1993)
350 ORDER revising the procedures and time frames for filing the quarterly reconciliation; ( see order for further details) ( Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 03/10/1993)
351 MOTION by Miller Frank Johnson for Deborah Whisnant to withdraw as attorney referred to Magis. Judge Charles R. Wilson (jlh) (Entered: 03/12/1993)
$75,000.00 paid into the registry of the Court: Receipt Number 091376 (jlh) (Entered: 03/25/1993)
352 THIRD QUARTER Reconciliation − January 1, 1993 to March 11, 1993 by Linda L. Glenn (jlh) (Entered: 03/25/1993)
353 MOTION by Linda L. Glenn, Dorothy J. Rowe, Court Monitors for order authorizing release of funds (jlh) (Entered: 03/25/1993)
354 AFFIDAVIT of Ralph E. Hughes by Linda L. Glenn, Dorothy J. Rowe, Court Monitors' Re: [353−1] motion for order authorizing release of funds (jlh) (Entered: 03/25/1993)
355 LOCAL RULE 3.010(g) Certification by Linda L. Glenn, Dorothy J. Rowe (jlh) (Entered: 03/25/1993)
356 JOINT STATEMENT regarding manner of notice and a proposed schedule for the approval of settlement by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Miller Frank Johnson, Robert Williams (jlh) (Entered: 03/26/1993)
357 ORDER granting [351−1] motion for Deborah Whisnant to withdraw as attorney (Terminated attorney Deborah Whisnant for Miller Frank Johnson ( Signed by Magis. Judge Charles R. Wilson ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 04/06/1993)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 46 of 146

04/09/1993 04/16/1993 04/22/1993 04/26/1993 04/30/1993 05/04/1993 05/13/1993 05/17/1993 05/27/1993
05/27/1993 05/28/1993
06/01/1993 06/02/1993
06/02/1993 06/02/1993 06/02/1993

358 RESPONSE by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Robert Williams to [353−1] motion for order authorizing release of funds (jlh) (Entered: 04/12/1993)
359 NOTICE of attorney appearance for Advocacy Center by Alice K. Nelson (jlh) (Entered: 04/19/1993)
360 NOTICE of correction by Advocacy Center (jlh) (Entered: 04/22/1993)
361 JOINT MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Miller Frank Johnson, Robert Williams for court approval of the payment of plaintiffs' attorney fees , costs for litigation and monitoring activity (jlh) (Entered: 04/26/1993)
362 THIRD QUARTER RECONCILIATION January 1, 1993 through March 31, 1993 by Ralph E. Hughes, Financial Consultant to Linda L. Glenn (jlh) (Entered: 04/30/1993)
363 MOTION by Office of Monitor with memorandum in support for order approving quarterly reconciliation for period ending 3/31/93. (sak) (Entered: 05/05/1993)
364 NOTICE of change of address of law firm Colodny, Fas &Talenfeld by Robert Williams (jlh) (Entered: 05/13/1993)
365 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson for fairness hearing and to approve notice to class members pursuant to the joint statement regarding manner of notice and proposed schedule for the approval of settlement (jlh) (Entered: 05/17/1993)
366 NOTICE of joinder to plaintiffs' motion for fairness hearing and to approve notice to class members pursuant to the joint statement regarding manner of notice and proposed shcedule for the approval of settlement by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Miller Frank Johnson (jlh) (Entered: 05/27/1993)
367 RESPONSE by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Robert Williams to [363−1] motion for order approving quarterly reconciliation for period ending 3/31/93. (jlh) (Entered: 05/27/1993)
368 EMERGENCY MOTION by Office of Monitor with memorandum in support for order approving release of funds from court registry to office of the court monitor, increasing monthly draw down from court registry, and authorizing initial deposit to court registry for fiscal year 1993−1994 with attachments (jlh) Modified on 05/28/1993 (Entered: 05/28/1993)
369 LOCAL RULE 3.010(g) certification by Office of Monitor (jlh) (Entered: 06/01/1993)
370 ORDER granting [361−1] joint motion for court approval of the payment of plaintiffs' attorney fees; granting [361−2] joint motion costs for litigation and monitoring activity; Payment of plaintiffs attorneys is approved and the payment of $16,749.85 to James K. Green and Florida Rural Legal Services by the defendants shall constitute payment in full for all recoverable attorneys' fees and costs for litigation and monitoring activity performed in this action from 10/22/92 through 1/3/93 (Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 06/02/1993)
371 ORDER granting [353−1] motion for order authorizing release of funds; The clerk of the court shall pay to the office of the monitor the sum of $36,733.48 as a one−time payment from and in addition to the monthly payment of $20,000. (Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 06/02/1993)
372 ORDER granting [363−1] motion for order approving quarterly reconciliation for period ending 3/31/93. ( Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 06/02/1993)
373 ORDER that any party objecting to the Court−initiated proposal to change the date of disbursement of the monthly payments of $20,000 to the Office of the Monitor to on or about the tenth of each month shall file such objections no later than 4:00 p.m. on June 15, 1993 ( Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway ) ctc (jlh) (Entered:

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 47 of 146

06/02/1993
06/02/1993 06/07/1993
06/07/1993
06/10/1993 06/15/1993 06/17/1993 06/21/1993 06/28/1993
07/02/1993 07/16/1993 07/19/1993 07/19/1993 07/21/1993 07/21/1993
07/21/1993

06/02/1993)
374 ORDER granting in part, denying in part [365−1] motion for fairness hearing and to approve notice to class members pursuant to the joint statement regarding manner of notice and proposed schedule for the approval of settlement; Denied as premature with leave to refile as set forth in this order; Granted subject to the modifications set forth in this order. The notice as modified by the Court is attached to this order. (docketed separately) See order for further details for procedure on posting the notice. (Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 06/02/1993)
375 NOTICE of proposed settlement to be attached to Order filed 6/2/93 (document 374) signed by Judge Anne C. Conway (jlh) (Entered: 06/02/1993)
376 RESPONSE by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Robert Williams to [368−1] motion for order approving release of funds from court registry to office of the court monitor, increasing monthly draw down from court registry, and authorizing initial deposit to court registry for fiscal year 1993−1994 (jlh) (Entered: 06/07/1993)
377 NOTICE of joinder in court monitors emergency motion for order approving release of funds from cort registry to office of the court monitor etc. by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Miller Frank Johnson (jlh) (Entered: 06/07/1993)
**Cleared appeal flag. (kit) (Entered: 06/10/1993)
378 RESPONSE by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Robert Williams to the office of the monitors' six quarterly reconciliations pursuant to [350−1] order dated 4/5/93 (jlh) (Entered: 06/15/1993)
379 AFFIDAVIT of Dorothy Rowe by Office of Monitor Re: reply to defendants' response to the monitors' motion for Emergency funds (jlh) (Entered: 06/17/1993)
380 NOTICE of vacation of counsel by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Robert Williams (jlh) (Entered: 06/21/1993)
381 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Gregory L. Coler, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Miller Frank Johnson, Robert Williams for court approval o the payment of plaintiffs' attorney fees and costs for litigation and monitoring activity (wlb) (Entered: 06/29/1993)
382 NOTICE of vacation of counsel for the Office of Monitor (jlh) (Entered: 07/06/1993)
LETTER from Mary Dorsey (Nixon) dated 7/15/93 to the court (jlh) (Entered: 07/16/1993)
383 MOTION by Office of Monitor with memorandum in support for order approving quarterly reconciliation for pertion ending 6/30/93 (jlh) (Entered: 07/19/1993)
384 FOURTH QUARTER Reconciliation Report from april 1, 1993 to June 30, 1993 by Office of Monitor (jlh) (Entered: 07/19/1993)
385 ORDER that document captioned Reply to defendant's response to court monitor emergency motion shall remain as filed; ( Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 07/21/1993)
386 REPLY by Office of Monitor to response to [368−1] motion for order approving release of funds from court registry to office of the court monitor, increasing monthly draw down from court registry, and authorizing initial deposit to court registry for fiscal year 1993−1994 (jlh) (Entered: 07/21/1993)
387 ORDER approving six quarterly reconciliations, 7/1/91 through 12/31/92; changing the date of monthly disbursement to Office of the Monitor to on or about the 10th day of each month; the Clerk of the Court shall pay to the Office of the Monitor a one−time disbursement of the balance as of June 30, 1993 of the principal deposits made by defendants less disbursements made to the Office of the

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 48 of 146

07/23/1993
08/02/1993 08/06/1993 09/01/1993 09/02/1993 09/17/1993
09/29/1993 09/29/1993
09/29/1993
10/04/1993 10/08/1993 10/18/1993 10/18/1993 10/20/1993

monitor (see order for further details); The defendants shall make quarterly payments to the registry based upon a projected budget of $300,000.; Monthly disbusement for the Office of the Monitor increase from $20,000 to 22,500. effective 7/1/93; SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION (Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway ) ctc (jlh) Modified on 08/19/1993 (Entered: 07/21/1993)
388 ORDER granting [381−1] motion for court approval to the payment of plaintiffs' attorney fees and costs for litigation and monitoring activity and the payment of $23,606.93 to James K. Green and Florida Rural Legal Service in this action from 1/6/93 through 4/7/93 ( Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 07/26/1993)
389 MOTION by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Robert Williams with memorandum in support to extend time to respond to motion for order approving quarterly reconciliation for period ending June 30, 1993 (jlh) (Entered: 08/02/1993)
$67,500.00 paid into the registry of the court; Receipt Number 95543. (jlh) (Entered: 08/09/1993)
$7,500.00 paid into the registry of the court: Receipt # 00235 (jlh) (Entered: 09/01/1993)
390 MOTION by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Robert Williams with memorandum in support to extend time to respond to motion for order approving quarterly reconciliation for period ending 6/30/93 (jlh) (Entered: 09/02/1993)
391 NOTICE of of expiration of the notice period and filing of affidavits substantiating the posting of the notice by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Robert Williams; Affidavits of:Dick Bradley, Martha Lenderman, R. Thomas Riggs, Paula Hays, Norma R. Rienhardt, Wray S. Register, H. Sheila Lopez, Brian L. Fitzsimmons, Mark Engelhardt, Marsha Lewis Brown, H. Sheila Lopez, Julian Rice, Robert H. More, Robert L. Coates, Roy Gaither, Dr. Nick Anthony, Marlene P. Minzey, Dolores R. Talty, David C. Schimmel, H. Shei9la Lopez, Bonnie Kamp, Gerald N. Ross, Ruth Cooper, Byron Smith, (jlh) (Entered: 09/17/1993)
392 OBJECTIONS by Mary D. Dorsey member of plaintif class to proposed stipulations (jlh) (Entered: 09/29/1993)
393 ORDER granting [389−1] motion to extend time to respond to motion for order approving quarterly reconciliation for period ending June 30, 1993, Response to motion reset to 9/2/93 for [383−1] motion for order approving quarterly reconciliation for pertion ending 6/30/93 ( Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 09/29/1993)
394 ORDER granting [390−1] motion to extend time to respond to motion for order approving quarterly reconciliation for period ending 6/30/93; Defendants shall have up to and including 15 days following defendants' receipt of the First quarter reconciliation of Fiscal year 93−94 in which to file their response ( Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 09/29/1993)
395 JOINT MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Miller Frank Johnson, Robert Williams for court approval of the payment of plaintiffs' attorneys fees and costs for litigation and monitoring activity (jlh) (Entered: 10/04/1993)
LETTER from Mark Grey addressed to the Court (jlh) (Entered: 10/12/1993)
396 MOTION by Office of Monitor with memorandum in support to approve quarterly reconciliation for period ending 9/30/93 (third quarter) (jlh) (Entered: 10/18/1993)
397 FOURTH Quarter Reconciliation July 1, 1993 to September 30, 1993 by Office of Monitor (jlh) (Entered: 10/18/1993)
Fees paid in the amount of $ 75,000.00 Receipt # 981 paid into the registry by the State of Florida, Dept of Health and Rehability Services (jlh) (Entered: 10/21/1993)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 49 of 146

11/04/1993
11/30/1993 11/30/1993
11/30/1993
12/15/1993 12/20/1993 12/20/1993 12/30/1993 01/03/1994 01/04/1994 01/18/1994 01/21/1994
01/21/1994
01/25/1994 01/25/1994 01/26/1994
01/26/1994

398 MOTION by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Robert Williams with memorandum in support to extend time to respond to motion for order approving quarterly reconciliation for period ending 6/30/93 and motion to approve quarterly reconciliation for period ending 9/30/93 (jlh) (Entered: 11/04/1993)
399 Letter to the court by Mark Gray (nsp) (Entered: 11/30/1993)
400 ORDER granting [395−1] joint motion for court approval of the payment of plaintiffs' attorneys fees and costs for litigation and monitoring activity. Payment of $10,782.42 by defendants shall constitute payment in full. ( Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway ) ctc (nsp) (Entered: 11/30/1993)
401 ORDER granting [398−1] motion to extend time to respond to motion for order approving quarterly reconciliation for period ending 6/30/93 and motion to approve quarterly reconciliation for period ending 9/30/93. Defendants have to and including 15 days following defendants' receipt of the Second Quarter Reconciliation of Fiscal Year 1993−94 to file their response. ( Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway ) ctc (nsp) (Entered: 11/30/1993)
402 MOTION for Howard M. Talenfeld to withdraw as attorney for defendants (wlb) (Entered: 12/17/1993)
403 NOTICE of withdrawal of request for by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson (eel) (Entered: 12/22/1993)
403 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson with memorandum in support to approve stipulations regarding exit criteria and legal access (proposed order) (eel) (Entered: 12/22/1993)
404 NOTICE of attorney appearance for Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Robert Williams by Morris E. Shelkofsky Jr. (jlh) (Entered: 01/03/1994)
405 NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT to the Honorable Judge Susan C. Bucklew . Notice to Counsel. (jlh) (Entered: 01/03/1994)
406 MEMORANDUM by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Robert Williams in opposition to [403−1] notice of withdrawal of request for fairness hearing (jlh) Modified on 02/15/1994 (Entered: 01/05/1994)
NOTICE to Counsel address to Mark Gray of G. Pierce Memorial Hospital returned (no longer resides) (jlh) (Entered: 01/19/1994)
407 JOINT MOTION and stipulation by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Miller Frank Johnson for court approval of the payment of plaintiffs' attorney fees and costs for litigation and monitoring (jlh) (Entered: 01/24/1994)
408 JOINT MOTION and stipulation by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Miller Frank Johnson for court approval of the payment of plaintiffs' attorney fees and costs for litigation and monitoring (jlh) (Entered: 01/24/1994)
409 MOTION by Office of Monitor with memorandum in support to approve quarterly reconciliation for period ending December 31, 1993 (fourth quarter) (jlh) (Entered: 01/25/1994)
410 SECOND QUARTER RECONCILIATION October 1, 1993 − December 31, 1993 by Office of Monitor (jlh) (Entered: 01/25/1994)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [402−1] motion for Howard M. Talenfeld to withdraw as attorney for defendants attorney Howard M. Talenfeld for Dick Bradley, attorney Howard M. Talenfeld for Robert Williams ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 01/26/1994)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [407−1] joint motion and stipulation for court approval of the payment of plaintiffs' attorney fees and costs for litigation and monitoring ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 01/26/1994)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 50 of 146

01/26/1994 01/26/1994 02/03/1994 02/07/1994 02/14/1994 02/14/1994
02/15/1994 02/22/1994 02/24/1994
02/24/1994 02/24/1994
02/24/1994 03/02/1994 03/07/1994 03/10/1994 03/14/1994 03/16/1994

ENDORSED ORDER granting [408−1] joint motion for stipulation for court approval of the payment of plaintiffs' attorney fees and costs for litigation and monitoring ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 01/26/1994)
411 NOTICE of change of address of attorney by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley (jlh) (Entered: 01/26/1994)
412 Court Monitor Fees deposited in the amount of $75,000.00 receipt number 2512, by Fl Dept Of Health/re (wlb) Modified on 02/09/1994 (Entered: 02/04/1994)
413 MOTION by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley with memorandum in support to extend time to respond to motion for order approving quarterly reconciliation (jlh) (Entered: 02/08/1994)
414 NOTICE of supplemental authority by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley (jlh) (Entered: 02/15/1994)
415 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson for leave to file reply to defendants' memorandum in opposition to plaintiffs' notice of withdrawal of request for fairness hearing and motion to approve stipulations regarding exit criteria (jlh) (Entered: 02/15/1994)
416 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson for Steven J. Schwartz to appear pro hac vice (jlh) (Entered: 02/15/1994)
417 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson with memorandum in support to join or partially substitute party (jlh) (Entered: 02/22/1994)
418 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley to [415−1] motion for leave to file reply to defendants' memorandum in opposition to plaintiffs' notice of withdrawal of request for fairness hearing and motion to approve stipulations regarding exit criteria (jlh) (Entered: 02/24/1994)
419 MEMORANDUM by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley in opposition to [416−1] motion for Steven J. Schwartz to appear pro hac vice (jlh) (Entered: 02/24/1994)
420 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley to [409−1] motion to approve quarterly reconciliation for period ending December 31, 1993 (fourth quarter), [396−1] motion to approve quarterly reconciliation for period ending 9/30/93 (third quarter), [383−1] motion for order approving quarterly reconciliation for pertion ending 6/30/93 (jlh) (Entered: 02/24/1994)
421 APPENDIX to response to motions to approve monitors quarterly reconciliations by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley (jlh) (Entered: 02/24/1994)
422 NOTICE of attorney appearance for Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson by Elizabeth Lewis Bevington (jlh) (Entered: 03/03/1994)
423 MOTION by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley with memorandum in support to extend time to resond to motion to join and or partially substitute party (jlh) (Entered: 03/08/1994)
424 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to [423−1] motion to extend time to resond to motion to join and or partially substitute party (jlh) (Entered: 03/10/1994)
425 NOTICE of filing copy of certificate admitting Steven J. Schwartz to appear pro hac vice in the Eleventh Circuit by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson (sak) (Entered: 03/15/1994)
426 NOTICE of change of address by amicus curiae by Advocacy Center (jlh) (Entered: 03/16/1994)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 51 of 146

03/17/1994 03/31/1994 04/14/1994 04/18/1994 04/22/1994 04/28/1994 04/28/1994 04/28/1994 05/02/1994 05/02/1994 05/05/1994 05/05/1994
05/06/1994 05/11/1994 05/12/1994 05/19/1994 05/20/1994
05/20/1994 05/20/1994

427 MEMORANDUM by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley in opposition to [417−1] motion to join or partially substitute party (jlh) (Entered: 03/17/1994)
428 NOTICE of attorney appearance for Fl Dept Of Health/re by Jason Vail (wlb) (Entered: 04/01/1994)
429 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson for status conference (jlh) (Entered: 04/14/1994)
430 NOTICE of withdrawal from stipulation regarding exit criteria by Fl Dept Of Health/Rehabilitative Services. (wlb) (Entered: 04/18/1994)
431 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley to [429−1] motion for status conference (jlh) (Entered: 04/25/1994)
432 MOTION by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley for leave to file memorandum longer than 20 pages (jlh) (Entered: 04/28/1994)
433 MOTION by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley to vacate [92−1] order of August 14, 1989 with memorandum incorporated and referred to in document 432 (with attachments) (jlh) (Entered: 04/28/1994)
434 NOTICE of defendants' withdrawal from stipulation regarding legal access by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley (jlh) (Entered: 04/28/1994)
435 MOTION by Office of Monitor with memorandum in support to approve quarterly reconciliation for period ending 3/31/94 (first quarter) (jlh) (Entered: 05/02/1994)
436 THIRD Quarter Reconciliation Report − January 1, 1994 − March 31, 1994 by Office of Monitor (jlh) (Entered: 05/02/1994)
437 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to strike [434−1] notice of withdrawal from stipulations regarding exit criteria and legal access (jlh) (Entered: 05/06/1994)
438 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson with memorandum in support for protective order as to defendants' interrogatories dated 4/4/94 referred to Magis. Judge Charles R. Wilson (jlh) (Entered: 05/06/1994)
439 MOTION by Advocacy Center with memorandum in support to extend time to reply to defendants motion to vacate (jlh) (Entered: 05/06/1994)
440 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to extend time to respond to defendants' motion to vacate portions of consent decree and order of 8/14/89 (jlh) (Entered: 05/11/1994)
441 MOTION by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley with memorandum in support to extend time to respond to the monitors' quarterly reconciliation for period ending 3/31/94 (jlh) (Entered: 05/12/1994)
442 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley to [438−1] motion for protective order as to defendants' interrogatories dated 4/4/94 (jlh) (Entered: 05/19/1994)
443 MOTION by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley with memorandum in support to withdraw notices of defendants' withdrawal form stipulation regarding legal access and stipulaton regarding exit criteria (jlh) (Entered: 05/20/1994)
443 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley to [437−1] motion to strike [434−1] notice of withdrawal from stipulations regarding exit criteria and legal access (jlh) (Entered: 05/20/1994)
444 MOTION by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley with memorandum in support to modify order of 5/17/94 (jlh) (Entered: 05/20/1994)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 52 of 146

05/31/1994 05/31/1994 06/08/1994 06/08/1994 06/08/1994 06/10/1994
06/13/1994 06/13/1994 06/20/1994 06/22/1994 06/22/1994 07/01/1994 07/01/1994 07/01/1994 07/12/1994

445 ORDER denying [438−1] motion for protective order as to defendants' interrogatories dated 4/4/94 ( Signed by Magis. Judge Charles R. Wilson ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 06/01/1994)
446 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson with memorandum in support to extend time to respond to defendants motion to modify order of 5/17/90 (jlh) (Entered: 06/01/1994)
447 NOTICE of compliance with Local Rule 3.01(g) by Fl Dept Of Health/re (jlh) (Entered: 06/08/1994)
448 RESPONSE by Fl Dept Of Health/re to [436−1] monitors' quarterly reconciliation statement covering the period of 1/1/94 to 3/31/94 (jlh) (Entered: 06/08/1994)
448 MOTION by Fl Dept Of Health/re with memorandum in support to modify the monitors' billing procedures with attachments (jlh) Modified on 06/08/1994 (Entered: 06/08/1994)
449 ORDER granting [413−1] motion to extend time to respond to motion for order approving quarterly reconciliation to the extent that defendants response filed 2/24/94 is considered timely; granting [423−1] motion to extend time to resond to motion to join and or partially substitute party to the extent that defendants' response to motion filed 3/17/94 is considered timely; granting [439−1] motion to extend time to reply to defendants motion to vacate, Response to motion reset to 7/1/94 for [433−1] motion to vacate [92−1] order of August 14, 1989 granting [440−1] motion to extend time to respond to defendants' motion to vacate portions of consent decree and order of 8/14/89; granting [441−1] motion to extend time to respond to the monitors' quarterly reconciliation for period ending 3/31/94, Response to motion reset to 7/1/94 for [435−1] motion to approve quarterly reconciliation for period 3/31/94 (first quarter) granting [446−1] motion to extend time to respond to defendants motion to modify order of 5/17/90, Response to motion reset to 7/1/94 for [444−1] motion to modify order of 5/17/94 ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 06/13/1994)
450 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson with memorandum in support for reconsideration of [445−1] order denying motion for protective order referred to Magis. Judge Charles R. Wilson with attachments (jlh) (Entered: 06/14/1994)
450 REQUEST for oral argument by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson re: [450−1] motion for reconsideration of [445−1] order denying motion for protective order (jlh) (Entered: 06/14/1994)
451 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley to [450−1] motion for reconsideration of [445−1] order denying motion for protective order (jlh) (Entered: 06/21/1994)
452 NOTICE of supplemental authority on motion to vacate by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley (jlh) (Entered: 06/22/1994)
453 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley to [450−1] oral argument requested (jlh) (Entered: 06/22/1994)
454 RESPONSE by Advocacy Center to [433−1] motion to vacate [92−1] order of August 14, 1989 (jlh) (Entered: 07/01/1994)
455 MEMORANDUM by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson in opposition to [433−1] motion to vacate [92−1] order of August 14, 1989 (jlh) (Entered: 07/01/1994)
456 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to [444−1] motion to modify order of 5/17/94 (jlh) (Entered: 07/01/1994)
457 ORDER granting [432−1] motion for leave to file memorandum longer than 20 pages to the extent that the motion with incorporated memorandum which is in excess shall be accepted; granting [443−1] motion to withdraw notices of defendants' withdrawal form stipulation legal access and stipulaton regarding exit

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 53 of 146

07/12/1994
07/12/1994 07/12/1994
07/12/1994
07/12/1994 07/12/1994 07/12/1994 07/12/1994
07/18/1994
07/18/1994 07/19/1994 07/29/1994 07/29/1994 08/01/1994 08/04/1994 08/05/1994

criteria; mooting [437−1] motion to strike [434−1] notice of withdrawal from stipulations regarding exit criteria and legal access ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 07/12/1994)
458 ORDER denying [444−1] motion to modify order of 5/17/94; As of the date of this order the Court will not accept any ex parte communication in this action until further notice; The clerk shall file all communication which has been received by the undersigned with reference to this matter including material received by the Court from the Monitors at their meeting on 3/4/94 ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 07/12/1994)
459 LETTER to the Court dated 1/27/94 from Office of the Monitor (1) (jlh) (Entered: 07/13/1994)
460 MATERIALS from the meeting with monitors on 3/4/91: 2a Proposed Agenda, 2b Resume of Dorothy Rowe, 2c Curriculum vitae of Linda L. Glenn, 2d Chronology of significant events, 2e Preliminary background and briefing for the court, 2f copies of specific pleadings ,b,c,d,e,f) (jlh) (Entered: 07/13/1994)
461 LETTERS as follows: to the Court dated 3/8/94 from Max Schneier; to Mr. Bradley dated 3/7/94 from Max Schneier; to Mr. Schneier dated 3/2/94 from Dick Bradley; Copies of newspaper article dated 2/16/94 and 12/23/93; to the Court dated 3/10/94 from Max Schneier (3) (jlh) Modified on 07/13/1994 (Entered: 07/13/1994)
462 LETTER to the Court dated 3/10/94 from Office of the Monitor (4) (jlh) (Entered: 07/13/1994)
463 LETTER to the Court dated 4/20/94 from the Office of the Monitor with attachments (5) (jlh) (Entered: 07/13/1994)
464 AUDIT material sent to chambers: Letter to Mr. Bradley dated 4/23/94 from Linda Glenn and Dorothy Rowe with attachments (6) (jlh) (Entered: 07/13/1994)
465 LETTER to the Court dated 6/22/94 from Office of the Monitor Dorothy; Letter to the Court dated 6/23/94 from Court monitors with attachments (7) (DOCUMENTS 459 THROUGH 465 ARE FILED UNDER SEPARATE COVER) (jlh) (Entered: 07/13/1994)
466 ORDER [450−1] motion for reconsideration of [445−1] order denying motion for protective order taken under advisement; Discovery by defendants in this matter is stayed; Plaintiffs need not respond to defendants' interrogatoreis dated 4/4/94 unless and until the court orders otherwise Signed by Magis. Judge Charles R. Wilson ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 07/18/1994)
467 MOTION by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley with memorandum in support for leave to file a reply to plaintiffs' responses to defendants' motion to vacate (jlh) (Entered: 07/18/1994)
Motion(s) referred: [467−1] motion for leave to file a reply to plaintiffs' responses to defendants' motion to vacate referred to Magis. Judge Charles R. Wilson (jlh) (Entered: 07/19/1994)
468 MOTION by Office of Monitor with memorandum in support to approve quarterly reconciliation for period ending 6/30/94 (Second Quarter) (jlh) (Entered: 07/29/1994)
469 FOURTH QUARTER RECONCILIATION by Office of Monitor April 1, 1994 − June 30, 1994 (jlh) (Entered: 07/29/1994)
Motion(s) no longer referred: [467−1] motion for leave to file a reply to plaintiffs' responses to defendants' motion to vacate (wlb) (Entered: 08/01/1994)
470 Notice of supplemental authority by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley in reply to response to [433−1] motion to vacate portions of the consent decree. (csh) (Entered: 08/05/1994)
471 Amended motion [468−1] to approve quarterly reconciliation (second quarter) (amended motion) by Office of Monitor (wlb) (Entered: 08/05/1994)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 54 of 146

08/15/1994 08/15/1994 09/27/1994 09/29/1994 10/27/1994 10/27/1994 10/28/1994 11/07/1994 11/07/1994 11/14/1994 11/18/1994 11/18/1994 11/23/1994 11/25/1994 11/25/1994 11/25/1994 11/25/1994 11/25/1994 11/25/1994

472 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley to [471−1] amended motion to approve quarterly reconciliation (second quarter) (amended motion) (jlh) (Entered: 08/15/1994)
473 NOTICE of supplemental authority in opposition to defendants motion to vacate by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson (jlh) (Entered: 08/15/1994)
474 ORDER directing the return of discovery materials. ( Signed by Magis. Judge Charles R. Wilson ) (ctc) (jlh) (Entered: 09/27/1994)
475 NOTICE of supplemental authority to defendants memorandum in opposition to motion to join and or partially substitute party by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley (jlh) (Entered: 09/29/1994)
476 MOTION by Office of Monitor to approve quarterly reconciliation for period enidng September 30, 1994 (jlh) (Entered: 10/27/1994)
477 FIRST Quarter Reconcilation July 1, 1994 throuh September 30, 1994 by Office of Monitor (jlh) (Entered: 10/27/1994)
478 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson for protective order and other sanctions referred to Magis. Judge Unassigned Magistrate (jlh) (Entered: 10/31/1994)
479 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson for attorney fees , and for costs (jlh) (Entered: 11/08/1994)
480 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson with memorandum in support for leave to file memorandum longer than 20 pages (jlh) (Entered: 11/08/1994)
481 MOTION by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley with memorandum in support for leave to file memorandum longer than 20 pages (jlh) (Entered: 11/15/1994)
482 NOTICE of supplemental authority to memorandum in opposition to motion for protective order and motion to recuse the monitors by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley (jlh) (Entered: 11/21/1994)
483 MOTION by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley with memorandum in support to extend time to file a response to motion for attorneys' fees (jlh) (Entered: 11/21/1994)
484 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to extend time to respond to defendant's motion for recusal of the monitors (jlh) (Entered: 11/28/1994)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [480−1] motion for leave to file memorandum longer than 20 pages ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 11/28/1994)
485 MEMORANDUM by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson in support of [479−1] motion for attorney fees, [479−2] motion for costs (jlh) (Entered: 11/28/1994)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [481−1] motion for leave to file memorandum longer than 20 pages ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 11/28/1994)
486 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley to [478−1] motion for protective order and other sanctions (jlh) (Entered: 11/28/1994)
486 MOTION by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley with memorandum in support to recuse the monitors (jlh) (Entered: 11/28/1994)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [483−1] motion to extend time to file a response to motion for attorneys' fees, Response to motion reset to 12/13/94 for [479−1]

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 55 of 146

11/29/1994
12/01/1994
12/02/1994 12/05/1994 12/08/1994 12/09/1994 12/09/1994 12/09/1994 12/12/1994 12/12/1994 12/14/1994 12/15/1994 12/16/1994 12/16/1994 12/16/1994 12/16/1994 12/19/1994

motion for attorney fees, reset to 12/13/94 for [479−2] motion for costs ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 11/28/1994)
487 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: The Office of the Monitor shall show cause why it has failed to meet with defendant in an effort to reach an agreement on a budget for fiscal year 1994−1995 and why it has failed to seek the Court's approval of a budget for fiscal year 1994−1995 as follows: Response to order to show cause due 12/16/94 for Office of Monitor ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 11/30/1994)
488 ORDER denying without prejudice [416−1] motion for Steven J. Schwartz to appear pro hac vice; Plaintiff shall show cause why the present representation is insufficient and why the appearance of Mr. Schwartz and Ms. Bevington is essential to the representation of plaintiffs' interests in this action set show cause response due ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 12/01/1994)
489 Attached correspondence to Judge Bucklew to be filed with the clerk and provided to all parties in accordance with the certificate of service filed by Office of Monitor (jlh) (Entered: 12/02/1994)
490 NOTICE of supplemental authority to their motio to recse the monitors by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley (jlh) (Entered: 12/05/1994)
491 MOTION by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley with memorandum in support to withdraw from the exit criteria stipulation (jlh) (Entered: 12/08/1994)
492 RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE ORDER filed Office of Monitor (jlh) (Entered: 12/09/1994)
493 MOTION by Office of Monitor to extend time to respond to motion for recusal of the monitors (jlh) (Entered: 12/09/1994)
494 RESPONSE by Office of Monitor to [486−1] motion to recuse the monitors (jlh) (Entered: 12/09/1994)
495 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to [486−1] motion to recuse the monitors (jlh) (Entered: 12/12/1994)
496 MOTION by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley with memorandum in support for leave to file memorandum longer than 20 pages (jlh) (Entered: 12/12/1994)
497 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley to monitors' offer to resign (jlh) (Entered: 12/15/1994)
498 MOTION by Advocacy Center to extend time to serve Amicus' response to motion to withdraw from the exit criteria stipulation (jlh) (Entered: 12/15/1994)
499 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to extend time to respond to defendants' motion to withdraw from the exit criteria stipulation (wlb) (Entered: 12/19/1994)
500 Request for evidentiary hearing by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson (wlb) (Entered: 12/19/1994)
501 RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE ORDER filed by plaintiff Daniel Fennell, plaintiff Sandra Guinn, plaintiff Gail Bjerkenes, plaintiff Lloyd Koger, plaintiff Miller Frank Johnson (wlb) (Entered: 12/19/1994)
502 MEMORANDUM by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson in support of [501−1] response (wlb) (Entered: 12/19/1994)
503 MOTION by Fl Dept Of Health/re with memorandum in support to dismiss count IV of the complaint , and to terminate the stipulation on legal access (wlb) (Entered: 12/21/1994)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 56 of 146

12/21/1994 12/21/1994 12/21/1994 12/21/1994
12/21/1994 12/23/1994 12/28/1994 01/03/1995
01/06/1995
01/06/1995 01/06/1995 01/11/1995 01/19/1995 01/19/1995
01/27/1995 01/27/1995 01/27/1995 01/31/1995

ENDORSED ORDER granting [493−1] motion to extend time to respond to motion for recusal of the monitors up to and including December 8, 1994. ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (wlb) (Entered: 12/28/1994)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [496−1] motion for leave to file memorandum longer than 20 pages ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (wlb) (Entered: 12/28/1994)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [498−1] motion to extend time to serve Amicus' response to motion to withdraw from the exit criteria stipulation ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (wlb) (Entered: 12/28/1994)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [499−1] motion to extend time to respond to defendants' motion to withdraw from the exit criteria stipulation, Response to motion reset to 1/17/95 for [491−1] motion to withdraw from the exit criteria stipulation ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (wlb) (Entered: 12/28/1994)
504 RESPONSE by Fl Dept Of Health/re to [479−1] motion for attorney fees (exhibits filed under separate cover) (wlb) (Entered: 12/28/1994)
505 RESPONSE by Fl Dept Of Health/re in opposition to [500−1] remark (wlb) (Entered: 12/29/1994)
506 ORDER directing the return of discovery materials. ( Signed by Magis. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) (ctc) (wlb) (Entered: 12/30/1994)
507 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to extend time to respond to defendant's motion to dismiss Count IV of the complaint and to terminate stipulation on legal access (jlh) (Entered: 01/04/1995)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [507−1] motion to extend time to respond to defendant's motion to dismiss Count IV of the complaint and to terminate stipulation on legal access, Response to motion reset to 1/20/95 for [503−1] motion to dismiss count IV of the complaint ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 01/06/1995)
508 MOTION by Advocacy Center to extend time to serve response to defendant;s motion to withdraw from the exit criteria stipulation (jlh) (Entered: 01/06/1995)
509 MEMORANDUM by Advocacy Center in opposition to [491−1] motion to withdraw from the exit criteria stipulation (jlh) (Entered: 01/06/1995)
510 NOTICE of supplemental authority to their response to plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley (jlh) (Entered: 01/12/1995)
511 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson in opposition to [491−1] motion to withdraw from the exit criteria stipulation (jlh) (Entered: 01/19/1995)
512 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson in opposition to [503−1] motion to dismiss count IV of the complaint, [503−2] motion and to terminate the stipulation on legal access (jlh) (Entered: 01/19/1995)
513 MOTION by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley for leave to file late response to monitors' quarterly ronciliation statement (jlh) (Entered: 01/27/1995)
514 OVJECITONS to monitors reconciliation statement by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley (jlh) (Entered: 01/27/1995)
LETTER dated 1/24/95 to the Court from plaintiff Cooper (jlh) (Entered: 01/27/1995)
515 MOTION by Office of Monitor to approve quarterly reconciliation for period ending 12/31/94 (jlh) (Entered: 02/01/1995)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 57 of 146

01/31/1995 02/01/1995 02/02/1995
02/02/1995 02/16/1995 02/21/1995 02/23/1995 02/23/1995 03/10/1995 04/05/1995
04/14/1995 04/14/1995 04/17/1995 04/24/1995 04/24/1995 04/25/1995

516 SECOND Quarter reconciliation October 1, 1994 to December 31, 1994 (jlh) (Entered: 02/01/1995)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [513−1] motion for leave to file late response to monitors' quarterly ronciliation statement ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 02/02/1995)
517 ORDER denying without prejudice [471−1] amended motion to approve quarterly reconciliation (second quarter) (amended motion); denying without prejudice [435−1] motion to approve quarterly reconciliation for period ending 3/31/94 (first quarter); denying [409−1] without prejudice motion to approve quarterly reconciliation for period ending December 31, 1993 (fourth quarter); denying [396−1] without prejudice motion to approve quarterly reconciliation for period ending 9/30/93 (third quarter); denying without prejudice [383−1] motion for order approving quarterly reconciliation for pertion ending 6/30/93; granting [448−1] motion to modify the monitors' billing procedures to the extent that the Office of the Monitor is ordered to comply with the provisons of the order of appointment of the monitor of May 17, 1990 doc. no. 200 ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 02/02/1995)
518 ORDER denying without prejudice [515−1] motion to approve quarterly reconciliation for period ending 12/31/94; denying [476−1] without prejudice motion to approve quarterly reconciliation for period enidng September 30, 1994 ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 02/02/1995)
CORRESPONDENCE returned dated 2/10/95 this date to Michael Dale (jlh) Modified on 02/16/1995 (Entered: 02/16/1995)
519 NOTICE of supplemental authority in support of application for fees and costs by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson (jlh) (Entered: 02/21/1995)
520 RESPONSE by Office of Monitor to [517−1] order dated 2/2/95 concerning reconciliation and billing procedure (jlh) (Entered: 02/23/1995)
521 RENEWED MOTION by Office of Monitor to approve quarterly reconciliations (jlh) (Entered: 02/23/1995)
522 MOTION by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley with memorandum in support to extend time to respond to the monitors' renewed motion to approve quarterly reconciliations (jlh) (Entered: 03/10/1995)
523 ORDER deferring [450−1] motion for reconsideration of [445−1] order denying motion for protective order pending further consideration by the District Court. This court's order of 7/19/94 staying discovery shall remain in effect pending further consideration by the district judge ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 04/05/1995)
524 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley to [521−1] motion to approve quarterly reconciliations for period ending 9/30/94 (jlh) (Entered: 04/17/1995)
525 MOTION by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley with memorandum in support for leave to file memorandum response to renewed motion to approve quarterly reconciliation (jlh) (Entered: 04/17/1995)
526 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley to [515−1] motion to approve quarterly reconciliation for period ending 12/31/94 (jlh) (Entered: 04/18/1995)
527 MOTION by Office of Monitor with memorandum in support to expedite ruling on renewed motion to approve quarterly reconciliations (jlh) (Entered: 04/25/1995)
528 MOTION by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley with memorandum in support to amend the process for paying the monitors (jlh) (Entered: 04/25/1995)
529 ORDER granting [415−1] motion for leave to file reply to defendants' memorandum in opposition to plaintiffs' notice of withdrawal of request for

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 58 of 146

04/25/1995 04/25/1995
04/28/1995 04/28/1995 05/02/1995
05/10/1995 05/11/1995
05/11/1995 05/22/1995 06/01/1995 06/07/1995 06/09/1995

fairness hearing and motion to approve stipulations regarding exit criteria and the clerk is directed to file plaintiffs' memorandum attached to the motion; granting [467−1] motion for leave to file a reply to plaintiffs' responses to defendants' motion to vacate and the clerk is directed to file defendants' memorandum attached to the motion; denying [508−1] as moot motion to extend time to serve response to defendant;s motion to withdraw from the exit criteria stipulation denying [484−1] as moot motion to extend time to respond to defendant's motion for recusal of the monitors [503−1] motion to dismiss count IV of the complaint referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III, [503−2] motion and to terminate the stipulation on legal access referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III, [491−1] motion to withdraw from the exit criteria stipulation referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III, [486−1] motion to recuse the monitors referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III, [433−1] motion to vacate [92−1] order of August 14, 1989 referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III, [429−1] motion for status conference referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III, [417−1] motion to join or partially substitute party referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III, [403−1] motion to approve stipulations regarding exit criteria and legal access referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 04/25/1995)
530 REPLY by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley to response in opposition to defendants motion to vacate (jlh) (Entered: 04/25/1995)
531 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to defendants memorandum in opposition to plaintiffs' notice of withdrawal of request for fairness hearing and motion to approve stipulations regarding exit criteria and legal access (jlh) (Entered: 04/25/1995)
532 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson in opposition to [528−1] motion to amend the process for paying the monitors (wlb) (Entered: 04/28/1995)
533 MOTION by Office of Monitor with memorandum in support to approve quarterly reconciliation for period ending March 31, 1995 (first quarter) (wlb) (Entered: 04/28/1995)
534 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson with memorandum in support status conference and oral argument on all motions referred to Magistrate Judge McCoun referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (jlh) (Entered: 05/03/1995)
535 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley to [534−1] motion status conference and oral argument on all motions referred to Magistrate Judge McCoun (jlh) (Entered: 05/10/1995)
536 MOTION by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley with memorandum in support to extend time to respond to the monitors' motion to approve quarterly reconcilation for the period ending 3/31/95 (jlh) (Entered: 05/12/1995)
537 SUPPLEMENT to their motion to recuse the monitors by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley (jlh) (Entered: 05/12/1995)
538 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to [537−1] defendants supplement to their motion to recuse the monitors (jlh) (Entered: 05/23/1995)
539 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley to [533−1] motion to approve quarterly reconciliation for period ending March 31, 1995 (first quarter) (jlh) (Entered: 06/01/1995)
540 NOTICE of Hearing: set status conference for 1:30 6/15/95 Scheduled for Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ctc (jlh) (Entered: 06/08/1995)
541 NOTICE of supplemental authority by Advocacy Center (jlh) (Entered: 06/09/1995)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 59 of 146

06/14/1995 06/15/1995
06/22/1995
06/22/1995
06/29/1995 06/30/1995 07/10/1995 07/11/1995 07/12/1995 07/12/1995 07/12/1995 07/13/1995 07/14/1995 07/19/1995

542 MOTION by Office of Monitor with memorandum in support for leave to file a reply to defendants' responses to monitors' motion s to approve quarterly reconciliations (jlh) (Entered: 06/14/1995)
543 NOTICE of Hearing: Motion hearing set for 11:00 7/12/95 for [491−1] motion to withdraw from the exit criteria stipulation, set for 11:00 7/12/95 for [433−1] motion to vacate [92−1] order of August 14, 1989, set for 11:00 7/12/95 for [403−1] motion to approve stipulations regarding exit criteria and legal access Scheduled for Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ctc (jlh) (Entered: 06/16/1995)
544 ORDER denying [521−1] motion to approve quarterly reconciliations; denying [522−1] motion to extend time to respond to the monitors' renewed motion to approve quarterly reconciliations; granting [525−1] motion for leave to file memorandum response to renewed motion to approve quarterly reconciliation and the clerk is directed to file defendant's response filed 4/14/95; denying as moot [527−1] motion to expedite ruling on renewed motion to approve quarterly reconciliations; The office of the monitor shall have 50 days to submit a renewed motion for reconciliatio for fourth quarter and the defendants will then have 30 days to prepare and submit objections motion filing deadline for 8/14/95 ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 06/23/1995)
545 ORDER denying [533−1] motion to approve quarterly reconciliation for period ending March 31, 1995 (first quarter); denying as moot [528−1] motion to amend the process for paying the monitors; denying [536−1] motion to extend time respond to the monitors' motion to approve quarterly reconcilation for the period ending 3/31/95 ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 06/23/1995)
546 MOTION by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley with memorandum in support for leave to file supplemental memorandum in support of their motion to vacate portions of the consent decree (jlh) (Entered: 06/29/1995)
547 MOTION by Office of Monitor with memorandum in support to approve monitor's budget for fiscal year 1994−95 (wlb) (Entered: 07/03/1995)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [546−1] motion for leave to file supplemental memorandum in support of their motion to vacate portions of the consent decree ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 07/11/1995)
548 RESPONSE by Advocacy Center to defendants' supplemental memorandum in support of their motion to vacate portions of the consent decree (jlh) (Entered: 07/11/1995)
549 ORDER granting in part, denying in part [479−1] motion for attorney fees, granting in part, denying in part [479−2] motion for costs. The Court awards Mr. Green $57,135.00 in interim attorney's fees. The ramining attorney's fees are denied. ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 07/12/1995)
550 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley in support of their motion to vacate portions of the consent decree (jlh) (Entered: 07/12/1995)
551 NOTICE of change of address of counsel by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson (jlh) (Entered: 07/12/1995)
552 MINUTE ENTRY: Oral Arguments held on 7/12/95 before Judge Tom McCoun Court Reporter: Kay Sanford (jlh) (Entered: 07/14/1995)
553 SECOND NOTICE of supplemental authority in opposition to defendants motion to vacate by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson (jlh) (Entered: 07/14/1995)
Motion(s) referred: [478−1] motion for protective order and other sanctions referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo (cek) (Entered: 07/19/1995)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 60 of 146

07/24/1995 07/24/1995 07/24/1995 07/31/1995 07/31/1995
08/01/1995 08/03/1995 08/07/1995 08/10/1995 08/10/1995 08/11/1995 08/11/1995 09/05/1995 09/05/1995 09/05/1995
09/06/1995 09/11/1995 09/11/1995 09/14/1995

554 MOTION by Office of Monitor to approve quarterly reocnciliation for period ending 6/30/95 (jlh) (Entered: 07/24/1995)
555 THIRD Quarter Reconciliation April 1, 1995 through 6/30/95 by Office of Monitor (jlh) (Entered: 07/24/1995)
556 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson with memorandum in support for reconsideration of [549−1] order (jlh) (Entered: 07/24/1995)
557 NOTICE of supplemental authority in opposition to defendants' motion to withdraw from the exit criteria stipulation by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson (wlb) (Entered: 08/01/1995)
558 NOTICE of supplemental authority in opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss count IV of the complaint and to terminate the stipulation on legal access by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson (wlb) (Entered: 08/01/1995)
Motion(s) referred: [478−1] motion for protective order and other sanctions referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (rjc) (Entered: 08/01/1995)
559 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley to [556−1] motion for reconsideration of [549−1] order (wlb) (Entered: 08/04/1995)
560 ORDER that the clerk is directed to reassign this case to the "E" (Magistrate Judge McCoun) docket for all further proceedings ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 08/08/1995)
561 NOTICE of correction to motion to approve quarterly reconciliation for period ending 6/30/95 by Office of Monitor (jlh) (Entered: 08/10/1995)
562 ORDER granting [556−1] motion for reconsideration of [549−1] order; The court awards attorneys' fees and costs; (see order for further details) ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 08/10/1995)
563 SECOND RENEWED MOTION by Office of Monitor to approve reconciliations (jlh) (Entered: 08/11/1995)
564 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley to [554−1] motion to approve quarterly reocnciliation for period ending 6/30/95 (jlh) (Entered: 08/11/1995)
565 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson with memorandum in support to expedite review and approval of monitors' budget (kit) (Entered: 09/05/1995)
MAGISTRATE JUDGE CASE ASSIGNMENT to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (kit) (Entered: 09/05/1995)
566 NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL of [562−1] order granting motion for reconsideration or to amend the Court's 7/11/95 order on interim fees by Fl Dept Of Health/Rehabilitative Services. Fee Status: 105.00 Receipt: 34430. Certificate of Readiness due on 9/20/95 (kit) Modified on 09/06/1995 (Entered: 09/06/1995)
Certified copies of notice of appeal, judgment/order under appeal, and docket transmitted to USCA: [566−1] appeal ctc (kit) (Entered: 09/06/1995)
567 RESPONSE by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley to [565−1] motion to expedite review and approval of monitors' budget (kit) (Entered: 09/12/1995)
567 MOTION by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley to mediate various disputes (kit) (Entered: 09/13/1995)
568 Transcript requested [566−1] appeal. Appeal Information Sheet filed. No transcript required. (kit) (Entered: 09/14/1995)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 61 of 146

09/14/1995
09/29/1995 10/02/1995 10/05/1995 10/05/1995 10/06/1995 10/11/1995 10/13/1995 10/17/1995 10/19/1995 10/26/1995 10/30/1995 11/06/1995 11/09/1995 11/09/1995 11/09/1995
11/09/1995

569 ORDER deferring [403−1] motion to approve stipulations regarding exit criteria and legal access; deferring [417−1] motion to join or partially substitute party; deferring [433−1] motion to vacate [92−1] order of August 14, 1989; deferring [478−1] motion for protective order and other sanctions; deferring [486−1] motion to recuse the monitors; deferring [491−1] motion to withdraw from the exit criteria stipulation; deferring [503−1] motion to dismiss count IV of the complaint; deferring [503−2] motion and to terminate the stipulation on legal access; denying as moot [429−1] motion for status conference ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (kit) (Entered: 09/14/1995)
NOTICE assigning 11th Circuit case number re: [566−1] appeal USCA NUMBER: 95−3163 (kit) (Entered: 10/02/1995)
570 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson with memorandum in support to substitute party (wlb) (Entered: 10/03/1995)
572 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger for status conference hearing (kit) (Entered: 10/06/1995)
573 DESIGNATION RECORD ON APPEAL by Dick Bradley, Miller Frank Johnson (kit) (Entered: 10/06/1995)
571 NOTICE of motion filed by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley (kit) (Entered: 10/06/1995)
574 RESPONSE by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley in opposition to [572−1] motion for status conference hearing (wlb) (Entered: 10/13/1995)
575 RESPONSE by Office of Monitor to [572−1] motion for status conference hearing (kit) (Entered: 10/16/1995)
Certificate of readiness with certified copies of indexed District Court docket sheet sent to USCA. (kit) (Entered: 10/17/1995)
Amended Certificate of readiness with certified copies of indexed District Court docket sheet sent to USCA. (kit) (Entered: 10/19/1995)
576 MOTION by Office of Monitor to approve quarterly reconciliation for period ending 9/30/95, first quarter (kit) (Entered: 10/26/1995)
577 MOTION by Office of Monitor to approve fiscal year 1995−96 budget (kit) (Entered: 10/30/1995)
578 MOTION by Office of Monitor with memorandum in support to refer all pending matters concerning the Office of the Monitor to the Magistrate (kit) (Entered: 11/06/1995)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [570−1] motion to substitute party Terminated defendant Dick Bradley . Added defendant Myers Kertz . ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (rjc) (Entered: 11/09/1995)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [542−1] motion for leave to file a reply to defendants' responses to monitors' motion s to approve quarterly reconciliations ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (rjc) (Entered: 11/09/1995)
579 REPLY by Office of Monitor to response to [577−1] motion to approve fiscal year 1995−96 budget, [576−1] motion to approve quarterly reconciliation for period ending 9/30/95, first quarter, [563−1] motion to approve reconciliations, [554−1] motion to approve quarterly reocnciliation for period ending 6/30/95, [547−1] motion to approve monitor's budget for fiscal year 1994−95 (rjc) (Entered: 11/09/1995)
580 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Myers Kertz to [577−1] motion to approve fiscal year 1995−96 budget (kit) (Entered: 11/13/1995)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 62 of 146

11/13/1995
11/13/1995 11/15/1995 11/24/1995 11/24/1995 12/01/1995 12/18/1995 12/28/1995 01/03/1996 01/03/1996

581 ORDER deferring [547−1] motion to approve monitor's budget for fiscal year 1994−95; deferring [554−1] motion to approve quarterly reocnciliation for period ending 6/30/95; deferring [563−1] motion to approve reconciliations; denying [565−1] motion to expedite review and approval of monitors' budget; granting [567−1] motion to mediate various disputes; denying [572−1] motion for status conference hearing; deferring [576−1] motion to approve quarterly reconciliation for period ending 9/30/95, first quarter; deferring [577−1] motion to approve fiscal year 1995−96 budget. Motions that are deferred are deferred until after pending mediation. Case is referred to mediation and the Court appoints Martha Cook as mediator. Jason Vail is designated as lead counsel. Mediation to be conducted between 11/15/95 and 2/1/96. Lead counsel to coordinate mediation. Matters referred to mediation are as follows: all disputes concerning quarterly reconciliations; all disputes concerning the payment application; all disputes concerning the Office of the Monitor's budget for fiscal years 1994−95 and 1995−96; defendants' motion to recuse the Office of the Monitor. ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) Lead counsel to coordinate dates. ctc (kit) (Entered: 11/13/1995)
582 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Myers Kertz to [578−1] motion to refer all pending matters concerning the Office of the Monitor to the Magistrate (kit) (Entered: 11/13/1995)
583 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Dick Bradley for attorney fees from 11/7/94 through 10/10/95 (kit) (Entered: 11/15/1995)
584 REQUEST for oral argument by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Myers Kertz re: [583−1] motion for attorney fees from 11/7/94 through 10/10/95 (kit) (Entered: 11/27/1995)
585 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Myers Kertz to [583−1] motion for attorney fees from 11/7/94 through 10/10/95 (kit) (Entered: 11/27/1995)
586 ORDER directing the return of discovery materials. ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) (ctc) (kit) (Entered: 12/01/1995)
587 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson for leave to file reply to defendants' response to plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs proposed reply attached. (cek) (Entered: 12/18/1995)
588 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III, recommended that the motion be denied. Re: [433−1] motion to vacate [92−1] order of August 14, 1989 ; Motion no longer referred Objections to R and R due by 1/11/96 ctc (wlb) (Entered: 01/02/1996)
589 ORDER denying [578−1] motion to refer all pending matters concerning the Office of the Monitor to the Magistrate ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (kit) (Entered: 01/03/1996)
590 ORDER granting in part, denying in part [583−1] motion for attorney fees from 11/7/94 through 10/10/95. The Court awards Mr. Green $45,411.00 in attorneys fees; the Court awards Ms. Bevington $4,762.00 in attorneys fees. The Court orders Mr. Schwartz to file a supplement to his application and dirests Mr. Schwartz to refrain from using abbreviations. The Court advises Mr. Schwartz to use Ms. Bevington's application as a guide in drafting his supplement. Additionally, the Court orders Mr. Schwartz not to file a supplement as to those entries which the Court has already deemed duplicative. Mr. Schwartz shall have 20 days from the date of this order to file his supplement. The Court awards Ms. Palkovich $4.00 in fees; the Court awards Mr. Green $1661.51 in expenses; the Court denies Ms. Bevington's application for expenses. The Court grants [587−1] motion for leave to file reply to defendants' response to plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs. The Clerk is directed to file Plaintiff's response. ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (kit) Modified on 03/06/1996 (Entered: 01/03/1996)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 63 of 146

01/03/1996 01/05/1996 01/09/1996 01/11/1996 01/16/1996 01/16/1996 01/16/1996 01/18/1996 01/22/1996 01/22/1996
01/23/1996 01/24/1996
01/24/1996 01/25/1996 01/25/1996 01/25/1996 01/25/1996 01/26/1996 01/29/1996

591 REPLY by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to response to [583−1] motion for attorney fees from 11/7/94 through 10/10/95 (kit) (Entered: 01/05/1996)
REQUEST from 11th circuit to forward record on appeal. (cek) (Entered: 01/09/1996)
Transmitted record on appeal to USCA. [566−1] appeal (Transmittal includes: 4 Vol. of Pleadings; ) (cek) (Entered: 01/09/1996)
592 OBJECTION by Fl Dept Of Health/re, Myers Kertz to [588−1] report and recommendations (wlb) (Entered: 01/12/1996)
ACKNOWLEDGMENT from 11th circuit of receiving record on appeal on 01/11/96. (fe) (Entered: 01/17/1996)
593 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson with memorandum in support for reconsideration of [590−1] order (fe) (Entered: 01/17/1996)
594 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson with memorandum in support to compel document production referred to Mag.Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (fe) (Entered: 01/17/1996)
595 MOTION by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Myers Kertz with memorandum in support for reconsideration of [590−1] order entered on 01/03/96 (cek) (Entered: 01/19/1996)
596 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Advocacy Center with memorandum in support to extend time to reply to defendants' objections to the Magistrate's report and recommendation (gkm) (Entered: 01/23/1996)
597 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to extend time to respond to defendants' objections to the report and recommendation on the defendants' motion to vacate parts of the consent decree (gkm) (Entered: 01/23/1996)
598 RESPONSE by Steven J. Schwartz, attorney for Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to [590−1] order requesting revised time records. (fe) (Entered: 01/24/1996)
599 ORDER granting [597−1] motion to extend time to respond to defendants' objections to the report and recommendation on the defendants' motion to vacate parts of the consent decree ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (fe) (Entered: 01/24/1996)
600 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Myers Kertz to [594−1] motion to compel document production (cek) (Entered: 01/25/1996)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [596−1] motion to extend time to reply to defendants' objections to the Magistrate's report and recommendation until 02/09/96 ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (cek) (Entered: 01/25/1996)
601 NOTICE of Hearing: set evidentiary hearing for 10:00 2/7/96 Scheduled for Mag.Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ctc (cek) (Entered: 01/25/1996)
COPY of correspondence regarding the mediator's letter confirming continued mediation on 02/05/96 and 02/06/96. (cek) (Entered: 01/26/1996)
602 MEDIATION REPORT. Mediation Hearing Held: 12/8/95, 1/15 &16/96. Martha Cook, Mediator. Hearing Outcome: Continued (map) (Entered: 01/26/1996)
603 NOTICE of Hearing: set evidentiary hearing for 3:00 2/6/96 Scheduled for Mag.Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ctc (fe) (Entered: 01/29/1996)
604 NOTICE of correction to defendants' response to plaintiffs motion to compel production of documents by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson (kit) (Entered: 01/30/1996)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 64 of 146

01/31/1996 01/31/1996 01/31/1996 02/01/1996 02/01/1996 02/05/1996 02/05/1996 02/05/1996 02/06/1996 02/08/1996 02/12/1996 02/20/1996 02/20/1996
02/22/1996 03/01/1996
03/01/1996
03/05/1996

605 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Myers Kertz to [595−1] motion for reconsideration of [590−1] order entered on 01/03/96 (map) (Entered: 01/31/1996)
606 MOTION by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, Myers Kertz with memorandum in support to compel production of documents , and for in camera review referred to Mag.Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (map) (Entered: 01/31/1996)
607 RESPONSE by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Myers Kertz to [604−1] notice of correction (jlh) (Entered: 02/01/1996)
608 NOTICE of Hearing: reset argument on exit criteria hearing Scheduled for Mag.Judge Thomas B. McCoun III to 3:00 2/6/96 ctc (jlh) (Entered: 02/01/1996)
609 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson in opposition to [595−1] motion for reconsideration of [590−1] order entered on 01/03/96 (jlh) (Entered: 02/02/1996)
610 MOTION by Office of Monitor with memorandum in support to approve quarterly reconciliation for period ending 12/31/95 (second quarter), or to refer to mediation (map) (Entered: 02/05/1996)
RESPONSE to objections to RR (map) (Entered: 02/05/1996)
611 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger to [592−1] objection (map) (Entered: 02/05/1996)
612 CLERK'S MINUTE ENTRY: motion held on 2/6/96 before Judge Tom McCoun Court Reporter: Debbie Flatow (wlb) (Entered: 02/07/1996)
613 MEDIATION REPORT. Mediation Hearing Held: 2/5 &2/6/96. Martha Cook, Mediator. Hearing Outcome: Continued (map) (Entered: 02/09/1996)
614 RESPONSE by Amicus Advocacy Center in opposition to [592−1] objection to report and recommendation (map) (Entered: 02/13/1996)
615 ORDER denying [595−1] motion for reconsideration of [590−1] order entered on 01/03/96, denying [593−1] motion for reconsideration of [590−1] order ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (gw) (Entered: 02/20/1996)
616 ORDER granting in part, denying in part [598−1] (Supplemented Application of Attorneys Fees) response The Court awards Mr. Schwartz $3,268.88 in attorneys fees. (See order for specific details) ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (gw) (Entered: 02/20/1996)
617 RESPONSE by Miller Frank Johnson in opposition to [606−1] motion to compel production of documents. (Received in 11th Circuit on 2/16/96). (kit) (Entered: 02/22/1996)
618 MEDIATION REPORT. Mediation Hearing Held: 02/29/96 and 3/1/96. Martha J. Cook, Mediator. Hearing Outcome: partially resolved. Lead counsel has been instructed to file a joint stipulation regarding those claims which have been resolved within 10 days. (cek) (Entered: 03/04/1996)
619 STIPULATION resolving reconciliation issues and establishing monitors' billing protocol and budget by defendant Robert Williams, plaintiff Daniel Fennell, plaintiff Sandra Guinn, plaintiff Gail Bjerkenes, plaintiff Lloyd Koger, defendant Fl Dept Of Health, defendant G. Pierce Wood Memor, plaintiff Miller Frank Johnson, defendant Myers Kertz . (cek) (Entered: 03/04/1996)
620 ORDERED that the issues raised in the Notice of Withdrawal of Request for Fairness Hearing and Motion to Approve Stipulations Regarding Exit Criteria and Legal Access and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. 403) and Motion to Withdraw from the Exit Criteria Stipulation (Doc. 491) be referred to a mediation conference. Martha Cook is hereby appointed by the Court to serve as a mediator in this action. The mediation conference shall be initiated within 45 days of the date of this order. The mediator is directed to notify the Court of the final results. ( Signed by Mag.Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (kit) Modified on 03/06/1996 (Entered: 03/05/1996)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 65 of 146

03/07/1996
03/18/1996 03/21/1996 03/28/1996 03/29/1996 04/04/1996 04/05/1996 04/08/1996 04/17/1996 04/19/1996 04/22/1996 04/26/1996 05/06/1996 05/06/1996 05/06/1996

621 ORDER granting [619−1] stipulation resolving reconciliation issues and establishing monitors' billing protocol and budget; granting [610−1] motion to approve quarterly reconciliation for period ending 12/31/95 (second quarter); granting [576−1] motion to approve quarterly reconciliation for period ending 9/30/95, first quarter; granting [563−1] motion to approve reconciliations for the period ending 6/30/93; granting [554−1] motion to approve quarterly reocnciliation for period ending 6/30/95; granting [533−1] motion to approve quarterly reconciliation for period ending March 31, 1995 (first quarter); granting [515−1] motion to approve quarterly reconciliation for period ending 12/31/94; granting [476−1] motion to approve quarterly reconciliation for period enidng September 30, 1994; granting [468−1] motion to approve quarterly reconciliation for period ending 6/30/94 (Second Quarter); granting [435−1] motion to approve quarterly reconciliation for period ending 3/31/94 (first quarter); granting [409−1] motion to approve quarterly reconciliation for period ending December 31, 1993 (fourth quarter); granting [396−1] motion to approve quarterly reconciliation for period ending 9/30/93 (third quarter); granting [383−1] motion for order approving quarterly reconciliation for pertion ending 6/30/93 ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (kit) (Entered: 03/07/1996)
622 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS on exit criteria and motion to approve stipulation regarding exit criteria and legal access for date of 2/6/96 before Magistrate Judge Thomas McCoun. Transcript filed separately. (kit) (Entered: 03/19/1996)
623 NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL of [590−1] order by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Myers Kertz Fee Status: 105.00 Receipt: 37197 Certificate of Readiness due on 4/5/96 (kit) (Entered: 03/22/1996)
ENDORSED ORDER denying as moot [594−1] motion to compel document production ( Signed by Mag.Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) (gkm) (Entered: 04/01/1996)
Certified copies of notice of appeal, judgment/order under appeal, and docket transmitted to USCA: [623−1] appeal ctc (kit) (Entered: 03/29/1996)
624 NOTICE OF CROSS−APPEAL by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson. Appeal fee paid. Receipt #37411. (rjc) Modified on 04/02/2003 (Entered: 04/05/1996)
NOTICE assigning 11th Circuit case number re: [623−1] appeal USCA NUMBER: 96−2422 (crb) (Entered: 04/08/1996)
625 DESIGNATION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson of record on appeal; attachment. (crb) (Entered: 04/08/1996)
626 Transcript requested [623−1] appeal Appeal Information Sheet filed. (map) (Entered: 04/17/1996)
627 MOTION by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Myers Kertz to extend time in which to mediate exit criteria dispute (cek) (Entered: 04/22/1996)
MAILED updated docket sheet along with a copy of 625 to USCA. (crb) (Entered: 04/22/1996)
628 ORDER denying [606−1] motion to compel production of documents, denying [606−2] motion and for in camera review ( Signed by Mag.Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (cek) (Entered: 04/29/1996)
629 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger with memorandum in support for attorney fees and costs from 10/11/95 (map) (Entered: 05/07/1996)
630 NOTICE of withdrawal of application for attorneys' fees and costs,by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger (map) (Entered: 05/07/1996)
WITHDRAWAL of and terminating [629−1] motion for attorney fees and costs from 10/11/95 to 4/1/96 (map) (Entered: 05/07/1996)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 66 of 146

05/08/1996 05/09/1996
05/10/1996 05/15/1996
05/15/1996 05/17/1996 05/20/1996 05/22/1996 07/02/1996
07/10/1996 07/10/1996 07/10/1996 07/22/1996
07/22/1996
07/22/1996 07/24/1996 07/25/1996
07/26/1996
07/29/1996

631 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Myers Kertz in opposition to [628−1] Magistrate Judge's order (map) (Entered: 05/09/1996)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [627−1] motion to extend time to 6/1/96, in which to mediate exit criteria dispute ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (map) (Entered: 05/10/1996)
632 NOTICE of substitution of counsel for amicus curiae, Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities, Inc. (ag) (Entered: 05/10/1996)
633 JUDGMENT OF USCA (certified copy) issued as the mandate, dismissing [633−1] appeal of order [566−1] appeal; MFR Number 113doc0533 USCA EOD: 5/3/96 (ag) (Entered: 05/16/1996)
Record on appeal returned from USCA: terminating appeal (4 Vol. Pleadings) (ag) (Entered: 05/16/1996)
634 MOTION by Advocacy Center with memorandum in support for Alice K. Nelson to withdraw as attorney (map) (Entered: 05/17/1996)
635 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger to [631−1] opposition response (map) (Entered: 05/20/1996)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [634−1] motion for Alice K. Nelson to withdraw as attorney ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (map) (Entered: 05/23/1996)
636 MEDIATION REPORT. Mediation Hearing Held: 6/4,5/96. Martha J. Cook, Mediator. Hearing Outcome: Continued, with a telephone conference scheduled for 7/15/96 at 1:00 (map) Modified on 07/06/1996 (Entered: 07/03/1996)
637 MOTION to intervene by U.S.A. (original complaint in intervention attached) (ag) Modified on 07/11/1996 (Entered: 07/11/1996)
638 MEMORANDUM by U.S.A. in support of [637−1] motion to intervene by U.S.A. (ag) (Entered: 07/11/1996)
639 Exhibits in support of U.S.A.'s motion to intervene. (ag) (Entered: 07/11/1996)
640 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to stay further consideration of pending motions on exit criteria . (ag) (Entered: 07/23/1996)
641 MEMORANDUM by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson in support of [640−1] motion to stay further consideration of pending motions on exit criteria. (ag) (Entered: 07/23/1996)
Request from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to forward the certificate of rediness. (ag) (Entered: 07/23/1996)
642 MOTION by Myers Kertz, Fl Dept Of Health/re to file a memorandum longer than 20 pages . (original signed response attached) (ag) (Entered: 07/25/1996)
643 MEDIATION REPORT. Mediation Hearing Held: 7/18/96 at 1:00 p.m. Martha J. Cook, Mediator. Hearing Outcome: important matters in this case that need to be resolved by the Court prior to any further mediation of the case. (ag) (Entered: 07/25/1996)
644 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to [637−1] motion to intervene by U.S.A. (ag) (Entered: 07/26/1996)
645 ORDER, that court finds it appropriate to calendar a hearing on the following pleading: [403−1] motion to approve stipulations regarding exit criteria and legal access, [406−1] defendants' memorandum of law in opposition to plaintiffs' notice of withdrarwal of request for fairness hearing and motion to approve stipulations regarding exit criteria and legal access and incorporated memorandum of law; plaintiffs' reply to defendants memorandum of law in opposition to plaintiffs' notice of wirthdrawal of request for fairness hearing and motion to approve stipulations regarding exit criteria and legal access. [491−1] motion to withdraw from the exit criteria stipulation . (Signed by Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III),

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 67 of 146

07/29/1996 07/29/1996
07/29/1996
07/30/1996 08/02/1996
08/02/1996 08/05/1996 08/08/1996 08/08/1996 08/09/1996
08/19/1996 08/21/1996
08/21/1996 08/29/1996 09/03/1996
09/26/1996 10/10/1996 10/25/1996
11/18/1996 11/22/1996

ctc (ag) (Entered: 07/29/1996)
646 NOTICE of Hearing: setting status conference for 10:00 a.m. on 9/18/96 scheduled for Mag.Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ctc (ag) (Entered: 07/29/1996)
647 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to confirm court monitor's authority to examine issues of harm . (ag) (Entered: 07/29/1996)
648 MEMORANDUM by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson in support of [647−1] motion to confirm court monitor's authority to examine issues of harm (ag) (Entered: 07/29/1996)
Certificate of readiness with certified copies of indexed District Court docket sheet sent to USCA. [623−1] appeal (ag) (Entered: 07/30/1996)
649 MOTION by plaintiff's attorney for Christine E. Larson, Michael Guare and Peter Helwig to withdraw as attorney referred to Mag.Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (wlb) (Entered: 08/05/1996)
650 RESPONSE by defendants to [640−1] motion to stay further consideration of pending motions on exit criteria (wlb) (Entered: 08/06/1996)
Returned mail as to Mark Gray. Updated address and remailed this date. (kit) (Entered: 08/07/1996)
651 AMENDED NOTICE of hearing: Status conference rescheduled from 9/18/96 at 10:00 to 9/25/96 at 1:30. (kit) (Entered: 08/09/1996)
652 MOTION by U.S.A. for leave to file reply to defendants' response to motion to intervene (kit) (Entered: 08/09/1996)
653 MOTION by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Myers Kertz to file a memorandum longer than 20 pages . (original memorandum attached). (ag) Modified on 08/12/1996 (Entered: 08/12/1996)
Request by the USCA for a corrected indexed docket sheet and certificate of rediness. (ag) (Entered: 08/20/1996)
654 DESIGNATION by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Myers Kertz, Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson of record on appeal; attachment. (ag) (Entered: 08/21/1996)
Corrected indexed docket sheet and certificate of readiness forwarded to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, this date. (ag) (Entered: 08/21/1996)
Acknowledgment of receipt of corrected indexed docket sheet and certificate of readiness by the U.S. Court of Appeal on 8/27/96. (ag) (Entered: 08/29/1996)
655 Plaintiffs, Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson's notice of supplemental authority in support of plaintiffs' response to United States' motion to intervene. (ag) (Entered: 09/03/1996)
656 MINUTE ENTRY: motion hearing held on 9/25/96 before Judge Thomas McCoun; Court Reporter: n/a. (ag) (Entered: 09/27/1996)
Proposed order on exit criteria, submitted by James K. Green, P.A. (ag) (Entered: 10/11/1996)
657 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS on status hearing for date of 9/25/96 before Judge Thomas B. McCoun, III. Transcript filed separately. (ag) (Entered: 10/28/1996)
Request by the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to forward the record on appeal. (ag) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Transmitted certified record on appeal to USCA. [623−1] appeal (Transmittal includes: 4 Vol. of Pleadings) (ag) (Entered: 11/22/1996)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 68 of 146

11/29/1996 12/03/1996 12/18/1996 12/23/1996 01/09/1997
01/16/1997 01/17/1997 01/17/1997 01/23/1997
01/24/1997 01/27/1997 01/27/1997 02/07/1997 02/13/1997 02/18/1997
02/18/1997

Acknowledgment of receipt of certified record on appeal by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. (ag) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
658 ORDER, that this matter is before the court sua sponte. Plaintiffs have sumbitted a proposed order not requested by the court. The Clerk is hereby directed to return this proposed order to counsel for plaintiffs. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III), ctc (ag) (Entered: 12/04/1996)
659 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to modify May 17, 1990 order to expand role of plaintiff's attorney and monitors in ensuring hospital compliance with consent decree . (ag) (Entered: 12/18/1996)
660 MOTION by Robert Williams, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Myers Kertz with memorandum in support to extend time to serve a response to plaintiffs' motion to modify 5/17/96 order (wlb) (Entered: 12/26/1996)
ENDORSED ORDER granting defendants' [660−1] motion to extend time to serve a response to plaintiffs' motion to modify 5/17/96 order; Response to motion reset to 1/13/97 for [659−1] motion to modify May 17, 1990 order to expand role of plaintiff's attorney and monitors in ensuring hospital compliance with consent decree . (Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew), ctc (ag) (Entered: 01/10/1997)
661 MOTION by Myers Kertz, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Fl Dept Of Health/re, Robert Williams for enlargement of time to serve a response to the plaintiffs' motion to modify May 17, 1990 order, etc. . (ag) (Entered: 01/16/1997)
662 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson in opposition to defendants' [661−1] motion for enlargement of time to serve a response to the plaintiffs' motion to modify May 17, 1990 order, etc. (ag) (Entered: 01/17/1997)
663 APPLICATION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson for attorneys' fees , and costs from October 11, 1995 to November 30, 1996 . (ag) Modified on 01/17/1997 (Entered: 01/17/1997)
664 ORDER granting defendants' [661−1] motion for enlargement of time to serve a response to the plaintiffs' motion to modify May 1990 order, etc.; Response to motion reset to 2/12/97 for [659−1] motion to modify May 17, 1990 order to expand role of plaintiff's attorney and monitors in ensuring hospital compliance with consent decree . (Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew), ctc (ag) (Entered: 01/27/1997)
665 NOTICE of Hearing: oral argument on motion to approve stipulation for legal access. State's motion to dismiss count IV set for 2/27/97 at 3:30 p.m. scheduled for Magstrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III . ctc (ag) (Entered: 01/28/1997)
666 JUDGMENT OF USCA (certified copy) dismissing [623−1] appeal; appellants' motion to dismiss this appeal with prejudice based on a settlement is granted; MFR Number 114 doc 0759−0760 USCA EOD: 1/24/97 (ag) (Entered: 01/28/1997)
Certified record on appeal returned this dated from the U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit. (ag) (Entered: 01/28/1997)
667 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson for entry of order granting plaintiffs' application for fees and costs from October 11, 1995 to November 30, 1996 . (ag) (Entered: 02/10/1997)
668 NOTICE of intent not to appear at the oral argument on February 27, 1997 on matters related to legal access by Office of Monitor. (ag) (Entered: 02/14/1997)
669 MOTION by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Myers Kertz with memorandum in support for enlargement of time to serve a response to the plaintiffs' motion to modify May 17, 1990 order, etc. and motion for entry of order granting plaintiffs' application for fees and costs from October 11, 1995 to November 30, 1996 . (ag) (Entered: 02/19/1997)
670 NOTICE of scrivener's error by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Myers Kertz regarding certificate of service on defendants' motion

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 69 of 146

02/26/1997
03/07/1997
03/07/1997
03/07/1997
04/21/1997 04/28/1997 06/23/1997 07/25/1997 08/11/1997 08/22/1997 08/28/1997 09/11/1997

for enlargement of time to serve a response to the plaintiffs' motion to modify May 17, 1990 order, etc. (ag) (Entered: 02/19/1997)
671 RESPONSE by Miller Frank Johnson, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn in opposition to [669−1] motion for enlargement of time to serve a response to the plaintiffs' motion to modify May 17, 1990 order, etc. and motion for entry of order granting plaintiffs' application for fees and costs from October 11, 1995 to November 30, 1996. (ag) (Entered: 02/26/1997)
672 NOTICE of withdrawal of motion for entry of order granting plaintiffs' application for fees and costs from October 11, 1995 to November 30, 1996 served February 4, 1997 and their motion to modify May 17, 1990 order to expand role of plaintiffs' attorney and monitors in ensuring Hospital compliance with consent decree served December 11, 1996, by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson. (ag) (Entered: 03/10/1997)
673 STIPULATION on payment of plaintiffs' attorney's fees , and costs for the period October 11, 1995 to November 30, 1996 by plaintiff Daniel Fennell, plaintiff Sandra Guinn, plaintiff Gail Bjerkenes, plaintiff Lloyd Koger, plaintiff Miller Frank Johnson, defendant Robert Williams, defendant Fl Dept Of Health/re, defendant G. Pierce Wood Memor, defendant Myers Kertz. (ag) (Entered: 03/10/1997)
674 JOINT MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson, Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Myers Kertz to approve stipulation on payment of plaintiffs' attorney's fees and costs for the period October 11, 1995 to November 30, 1996 . (ag) (Entered: 03/10/1997)
675 NOTICE of supplemental authority in oppositition to defendants' motion to vacate by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson. (ag) (Entered: 04/22/1997)
676 MOTION by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Myers Kertz to withdraw funds remaining in court registry . (ag) (Entered: 04/29/1997)
677 NOTICE of administrative error by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Myers Kertz. (ag) (Entered: 06/24/1997)
678 NOTICE of vacation from 7/24/97 to 8/3/97 and 8/11/97 to 8/17/97 of David Frank, attorney for defendants Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Myers Kertz (kit) (Entered: 07/29/1997)
679 MOTION by plaintiffs Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson for extension of time to challenge monitor's reports and recommendations regarding quality assurance and interrater reliability . (ag) (Entered: 08/12/1997)
680 NOTICE of supplemental authority in opposition to defendants' motion to withdraw from exit criteria, by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson. (ag) Modified on 05/24/2001 (Entered: 08/25/1997)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [679−1] motion for extension of time to challenge monitor's reports and recommendations regarding quality assurance and interrater reliability. (Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew), ctc (ag) (Entered: 08/29/1997)
681 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III; Motions no longer referred; Objections to R and R due by 9/25/97; it is recommended that the plaintiffs' notice of withdrawal of request for fairness hearing and motion to approve stipulation regarding exit criteria [403−1] be granted and that defendants' motion to withdraw from exit criteria stipulation [491−1] be denied. This court further recommends that the parties be ordered to continue mediation directed toward and amicable resolution of the disputes regarding the monitors and the refinement or modification of the community compliance exit criteria in light of the current circumstances. This court recommends that plaintiffs' [403−1] be granted as to the stipulation on legal access

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 70 of 146

09/17/1997 09/23/1997 09/29/1997 09/30/1997
10/01/1997 10/01/1997 10/03/1997 10/14/1997 10/16/1997 10/16/1997 10/24/1997 11/10/1997

and the defendants' [503−1] motion be denied, without prejudice for further mediation or hearings on the matter of termination. ctc (ag) Modified on 09/17/1997 (Entered: 09/12/1997)
682 NOTICE of substitution of Nina M. Zollo, Holland &Knight, for Elizabeth L. Bevington, Hollan &Knight as counsel for plaintiff, by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson. (ag) (Entered: 09/18/1997)
683 MOTION by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Myers Kertz with memorandum in support to extend time to serve written objections to magistrate judge's report and recommendation . (proposed order attached) (ag) (Entered: 09/23/1997)
684 ORDER granting, nunc pro tunc, defendants' [683−1] motion to extend time to serve written objections to magistrate judge's report and recommendation; Objections reset to 10/13/97 for [681−1] report and recommendations . (Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew), ctc (ag) (Entered: 09/30/1997)
685 ORDER granting [642−1] motion to file a memorandum longer than 20 pages; granting [649−1] motion for Christine E. Larson, Michael Guare and Peter Helwig to withdraw as attorney; granting [652−1] motion for leave to file reply to defendants' response to motion to intervene; granting [653−1] motion to file a memorandum longer than 20 pages; mooting [663−1] motion for attorneys' fees; mooting [663−2] motion costs from October 11, 1995 to November 30, 1996; mooting [669−1] motion for enlargement of time to serve a response to the plaintiffs' motion to modify May 17, 1990 order, etc. and motion for entry of order granting plaintiffs' application for fees and costs from October 11, 1995 to November 30, 1996; granting [674−1] joint motion to approve stipulation on payment of plaintiffs' attorney's fees and costs for the period October 11, 1995 to November 30, 1996; granting [676−1] motion to withdraw funds remaining in court registry. (Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew), ctc (ag) (Entered: 10/01/1997)
686 SECOND MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson for 30−day extension of time to challenge monitor's reports and recommendations regarding quality assurance and interrater reliability . (ag) (Entered: 10/01/1997)
687 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III that [417−1] motion to join or partially substitute party be denied; Motion no longer referred. Objections to R and R due by 10/15/97 ctc (rjc) (Entered: 10/02/1997)
Copy of order dated 9/29/97 address to Mark Gray returned as undelivered. (unable to forward) (ag) (Entered: 10/06/1997)
688 NOTICE to the Court of pending motion to intervene by U.S.A. (ag) (Entered: 10/15/1997)
689 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson for 15−day extension of time respond to report and recommendation dated September 30, 1997 . (ag) (Entered: 10/20/1997)
690 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to refer the United States' motion to intervene to the magistrate . (ag) (Entered: 10/20/1997)
691 SECOND MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Lloyd Koger, Gail Bjerkenes, Miller Frank Johnson to extend time to respond to report and recommendation dated September 30, 1997 . (ag) (Entered: 10/24/1997)
692 NOTICE to the Court of substitution of Ed Feaver, Secretary of the Florida Department of Children and Family Services, and Doug Cook, Director of the Florida Agency for Healthcare Administration, for James Towey, former Secretary of the Florida Deparment of Health and Rehabilitative Services, by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson. (ag) (Entered: 11/12/1997)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 71 of 146

11/14/1997 11/17/1997 11/17/1997 11/20/1997 12/29/1997 01/05/1998 01/30/1998 02/05/1998 02/05/1998 02/09/1998
02/09/1998
02/23/1998 03/02/1998 03/09/1998 03/11/1998 03/20/1998

693 OBJECTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to [687−1] report and recommendations. (ag) (Entered: 11/14/1997)
694 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Office of Monitor to approve office of the monitor's budget . (attachment) (ag) (Entered: 11/18/1997)
695 MEMORANDUM by Office of Monitor in support of [694−1] motion to approve office of the monitor's budget. (ag) (Entered: 11/18/1997)
696 NOTICE of correction of typographical error in the unopposed motion and memorandum of law approving the monitor's budget, by Office of Monitor. (ag) (Entered: 11/20/1997)
697 MOTION by Plaintiffs with memorandum in support to compel response to plaintiffs' sixteenth request for production ; referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (attachments) (ag) (Entered: 12/30/1997)
698 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Myers Kertz in opposition to plaintiffs' [697−1] motion to compel response to plaintiffs' sixteenth request for production. (attachments) (ag) (Entered: 01/07/1998)
699 MOTION by plaintiffs for leave to file reply to defendants' response in opposition to plaintiffs' motion to compel production of documents ; referred to Mag.Judge Thomas B. McCoun III. (original reply with exhibits attached) (ag) (Entered: 01/30/1998)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [699−1] motion for leave to file reply to defendants' response in opposition to plaintiffs' motion to compel production of documents. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III), ctc (ag) (Entered: 02/06/1998)
700 REPLY by plaintiffs to defendants' response to plaintiffs' [697−1] motion to compel response to plaintiffs' sixteenth request for production. (attachments) (ag) (Entered: 02/06/1998)
Motion(s) no longer referred: [689−1] motion for 15−day extension of time respond to report and recommendation dated September 30, 1997, [691−1] motion to extend time to respond to report and recommendation dated September 30, 1997, [690−1] motion to refer the United States' motion to intervene to the magistrate. (per law clerk's instructions) (ag) (Entered: 02/09/1998)
Motion(s) no longer referred: [637−1] motion to intervene by U.S.A., [647−1] motion to confirm court monitor's authority to examine issues of harm, [686−1] motion for 30−day extension of time to challenge monitor's reports and recommendations regarding quality assurance and interrater reliability, [694−1] motion to approve office of the monitor's budget. (per law clerk's instructions) (ag) (Entered: 02/09/1998)
701 MOTION by Miller Frank Johnson, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn with memorandum in support for expedited ruling on plaintiffs' motion to confirm court monitor's authority and on the United States' motion to intervene . (attachments) (ag) (Entered: 02/25/1998)
Motion(s) no longer referred: [701−1] motion for expedited ruling on plaintiffs' motion to confirm court monitor's authority and on the United States' motion to intervene (ag) (Entered: 03/02/1998)
702 MOTION by plaintiffs Daniel Fennell, et al. with memorandum in support to compel response to plaintiffs' seveteenth request for production ; referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III. (ag) (Entered: 03/10/1998)
703 RESPONSE by defendants to [701−1] motion for expedited ruling on plaintiffs' motion to confirm court monitor's authority and on the United States' motion to intervene. (ag) (Entered: 03/12/1998)
704 MOTION by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Myers Kertz with memorandum in support to extend time to serve a response to

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 72 of 146

03/23/1998
03/23/1998 03/26/1998 03/30/1998 04/02/1998 04/03/1998 04/07/1998
04/08/1998 04/08/1998 04/09/1998 04/09/1998

plaintiffs' March 4, 1998 motion to compel ; referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III. (ag) (Entered: 03/23/1998)
705 ORDER, that the magistrate's reports and recommendations (documents nos. 588, 681 and 687) are each hereby adopted and incorporated in this order by reference; denying [433−1] motion to vacate [92−1] order of August 14, 1989; granting [403−1] motion to approve stipulations regarding exit criteria and legal access; denying [491−1] motion to withdraw from the exit criteria stipulation; denying [640−1] motion to stay further consideration of pending motions on exit criteria; denying [503−1] motion to dismiss count IV of the complaint; denying [417−1] motion to join or partially substitute party; granting [637−1] motion to intervene by U.S.A.; the clerk of court is directed to file the complaint in intervention attached to document 637; denying [647−1] motion to confirm court monitor's authority to examine issues of harm; denying as moot [686−1] motion for 30−day extension of time to challenge monitor's reports and recommendations regarding quality assurance and interrater reliability; denying as moot [689−1] motion for 15−day extension of time respond to report and recommendation dated September 30, 1997; denying as moot [690−1] motion to refer the United States' motion to intervene to the magistrate; denying as moot [691−1] motion to extend time to respond to report and recommendation dated September 30, 1997; denying as moot [701−1] motion for expedited ruling on plaintiffs' motion to confirm court monitor's authority and on the United States' motion to intervene. Henceforth all motions filed in this case shall be automatically referred to the Honorable Thomas B. McCoun, III for disposition. Only objections to Judge McCouns' rulings or rulings which require, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), a district court judge's approval shall be brought before the undersigned. Accordingly, the Monitor's motion for approval of budget (document no. 694) is hereby referred to Judge McCoun. (Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew), ctc (ag) (Entered: 03/23/1998)
Motion(s) referred: [694−1] motion to approve office of the monitor's budget referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (ag) (Entered: 03/23/1998)
706 NOTICE of Hearing: set status conference for 10:30 4/9/98 scheduled for Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III . ctc (ag) (Entered: 03/27/1998)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [704−1] motion to extend time to serve a response to plaintiffs' March 4, 1998 motion to compel; Response to motion reset to 4/7/98 for [702−1] motion to compel response to plaintiffs' seveteenth request for production . (Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III), ctc (ag) (Entered: 03/30/1998)
707 Intervenor's COMPLAINT by USA against State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Philip L. Dorsey, Michael Becker, Chip Taylor, Sue Gray, Wilbur Williams, Myers Kurtz. (ag) (Entered: 04/03/1998)
708 NOTICE of substitution of parties by USA. (ag) (Entered: 04/06/1998)
709 CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER entered at the 11th Circuit on 4/1/98, that respondents, Myers Kurtz, et al., are ordered to file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus within thirty days from the date of this order. The district judge is invited to file a response within those same thirty days. If the district judge declines to participate, she should serve and file a letter to theat effect withiin this court's clerk within thirty days. (Signed by Judge Stanley Marcus), ctc (ag) (Entered: 04/08/1998)
710 AMENDED NOTICE of substitution of party by USA (jlh) (Entered: 04/09/1998)
711 MOTION (application) by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson with memorandum in support for attorney fees , and costs for the period 10/1/97 to 2/28/98 (jlh) (Entered: 04/09/1998)
712 RESPONSE by Fl Dept Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Myers Kertz in opposition to [702−1] motion to compel response to plaintiffs' seveteenth request for production (cek) (Entered: 04/10/1998)
SUMMONS(ES) issued for State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, Myers Kurtz .

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 73 of 146

04/09/1998 04/09/1998 04/13/1998
04/13/1998 04/16/1998 04/16/1998 04/17/1998
04/20/1998
04/20/1998
04/20/1998
04/21/1998 04/30/1998 04/30/1998 05/04/1998 05/06/1998 05/07/1998 05/07/1998
05/07/1998 05/07/1998 05/07/1998

Consent(s) issued. (cek) (Entered: 04/10/1998)
713 MINUTE ENTRY: status conference held on 04/09/98 before Judge Thomas B. McCoun, III Tape 32 @ 2001 (cek) (Entered: 04/10/1998)
Status conference held (cek) (Entered: 04/10/1998)
714 ORDER that the unopposed [694−1] motion to approve office of the monitor's budget is granted and the budget attched thereto is approved. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III), ctc (ag) (Entered: 04/13/1998)
SUMMONS(ES) issued for Doug Cook, Director Florida Agency for Health Care Administration. Consent(s) issued. (ag) (Entered: 04/14/1998)
715 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to Don Dixon on 4/14/98; Answer due on 5/4/98 for Don Dixon. (ag) (Entered: 04/17/1998)
716 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to Lynn Richard on 4/15/98; Answer due on 5/5/98 for Lynn Richard. (ag) (Entered: 04/17/1998)
717 NOTICE of filing amicus curiae's report regarding the death of Elgia Dupuis and request for action by the Office of the Court Monitor by Advocacy Center. (attachments) (ag) (Entered: 04/20/1998)
718 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson with memorandum in support to compel response to plaintiffs' nineteenth request for production ; referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (ag) (Entered: 04/21/1998)
719 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson for leave to file reply to defendants' response in opposition to plaintiffs' motion to compel production of documents dated March 4, 1998 ; referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (original reply attached) (ag) (Entered: 04/21/1998)
720 CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER dated 4/16/98 from USCA that petitioners' motion to withdraw petition for writ of mandamus is granted. (Signed by Judge Stanley Marcus) (ag) (Entered: 04/21/1998)
721 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to Sue Gray on 4/17/98: Answer due on 5/7/98 for Sue Gray. (ag) (Entered: 04/22/1998)
722 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to Myers Kurtz 4/15/98; Answer due on 5/5/98 for Myers Kurtz. (ag) (Entered: 05/01/1998)
723 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to Frances Gibbons 4/15/98; Answer due on 5/5/98 for Frances Gibbons. (ag) (Entered: 05/01/1998)
724 NOTICE of attorney appearance for State of Florida by Pamela H. Page. (ag) Modified on 05/17/1999 (Entered: 05/06/1998)
Notice of change of address for attorney Warren A. Zimmerman. (ag) (Entered: 05/07/1998)
725 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to John Bryant (not a named party) on 4/21/98. (ag) (Entered: 05/08/1998)
726 PROOF of Service by USA; served Doug Cook, Florida Agency for Health Care Administration with a copy of summons and complaint on 4/20/98. (ag) (Entered: 05/08/1998)
727 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to Ed Feaver on 4/20/98; Answer due on 5/11/98 for Ed Feaver. (ag) (Entered: 05/08/1998)
728 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to Lawton Chiles 4/17/98; Answer due on 5/7/98 for Lawton Chiles. (ag) (Entered: 05/08/1998)
729 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to Pam Paulick on 4/23/98; Answer due on 5/13/98 for Pam Paulick. (ag) (Entered: 05/08/1998)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 74 of 146

05/11/1998 05/19/1998 05/20/1998 05/22/1998 05/28/1998 05/28/1998 06/03/1998 06/08/1998 06/08/1998 06/15/1998 08/07/1998 08/12/1998 08/19/1998
08/24/1998
08/24/1998
09/08/1998

730 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson for expedited ruling on plaintiffs' motion to compel ; referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (ag) (Entered: 05/12/1998)
731 ANSWER with affirmative defenses by State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, Myers Kurtz, Frances Gibbons, Robert Constantine to [707−1] intervenor's complaint. (ag) (Entered: 05/20/1998)
732 MEMORANDUM by all defendants in opposition to [730−1] motion for expedited ruling on plaintiffs' motion to compel. (ag) (Entered: 05/21/1998)
733 NOTICE of settlement of prior fee application by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson. (ag) (Entered: 05/26/1998)
734 MOTION by defendants Robert Williams, et al. for Thomas B. York to appear pro hac vice . (ag) (Entered: 05/29/1998)
Motion(s) referred: [734−1] motion for Thomas B. York to appear pro hac vice referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (ag) (Entered: 05/29/1998)
735 ORDER denying as moot plaintiffs' [711−1] motion for attorney fees; denying as moot plaintiffs' [711−2] motion costs for the period 10/1/97 to 2/28/98. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III) ctc (ag) (Entered: 06/04/1998)
736 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to [734−1] motion for Thomas B. York to appear pro hac vice. (ag) (Entered: 06/08/1998)
737 APPLICATION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson with memorandum in support for attorney fees , and costs for the period of March 1, 1998 to April 30, 1998 referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III. (attachments) (ag) (Entered: 06/08/1998)
Change of firm/address for Thomas B. York. (Dilworth Paxson LLP, 305 North Front Street, Suite 403, Harrisburg, PA 17101−1236. (ag) (Entered: 06/16/1998)
738 APPLICATION by plaintiffs with memorandum in support for attorney fees , and costs for the period May 1, 1998 to June 30, 1998 ; referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (ag) (Entered: 08/10/1998)
739 MOTION by defendants Robert Williams, et al. with memorandum in support for enlargement of time to serve objections to plaintiffs' application for attorney's fees and costs for the period of May 1, 1998 to June 30, 1998 ; referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (ag) (Entered: 08/13/1998)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [739−1] motion for enlargement of time to serve objections to plaintiffs' application for attorney's fees and costs for the period of May 1, 1998 to June 30, 1998; response to motion reset to 8/24/98 for [738−1] motion for attorney fees . (Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III), ctc (ag) (Entered: 08/20/1998)
740 OBJECTION by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/Care, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Myers Kertz, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, Myers Kurtz to [738−1] motion for attorney fees, [738−2] motion costs for the period May 1, 1998 to June 30, 1998; attachments. (ag) (Entered: 08/24/1998)
740 REQUEST for oral argument by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Myers Kertz, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, Myers Kurtz regarding: [740−1] response in opposition to plaintiffs' application for attorneys' fees and costs for the period of May 1, 1998 to June 30, 1998. (ag) (Entered: 08/25/1998)
Motion(s) referred: [697−1] motion to compel response to plaintiffs' sixteenth request for production and [702−1] motion to compel response to plaintiffs' seveteenth request for production referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (ag) (Entered: 09/08/1998)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 75 of 146

09/14/1998 09/16/1998
09/16/1998 09/17/1998 09/17/1998 09/22/1998 09/28/1998 10/05/1998 10/05/1998 10/13/1998 10/13/1998
10/13/1998
10/14/1998 10/16/1998

741 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson, USA for leave to file reply to defendants' objections to plaintiffs' application for attorneys' fees and costs ; referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III. (original reply attached) (ag) (Entered: 09/15/1998)
742 ORDER granting [697−1] motion to compel response to plaintiffs' sixteenth request for production; granting [718−1] motion to compel response to plaintiffs' nineteenth request for production; granting [702−1] motion to compel response to plaintiffs' seveteenth request for production; denying as moot [730−1] motion for expedited ruling on plaintiffs' motion to compel; granting [719−1] motion for leave to file reply to defendants' response in opposition to plaintiffs' motion to compel production of documents dated March 4, 1998; the clerk of court is directed to file and docket plaintiffs' reply to defendants' response in opposition to plaintiffs' motion to compel production of documents dated March 4, 1998, dated April 17, 1998. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III), ctc (ag) (Entered: 09/16/1998)
743 REPLY by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to response in opposition to [702−1] motion to compel response to plaintiffs' seveteenth request for production. (ag) (Entered: 09/16/1998)
744 ORDER granting [741−1] motion for leave to file reply to defendants' objections to plaintiffs' application for attorneys' fees and costs. ( Signed by Mag.Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (wlb) (Entered: 09/18/1998)
745 Reply by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to [740−1] opposition response for attorney fees and costs for the period 5/1/98 to 6/30/98. (attachments) (wlb) (Entered: 09/18/1998)
746 NOTICE of attorney appearance for USA by Laurie J. Weinstein, Elaine R. Lubin. (ag) (Entered: 09/23/1998)
747 OBJECTIONS by defendants to [742−1] order on motions to compel. (ag) (Entered: 09/29/1998)
748 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson for hearing on discovery plan ; referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (ag) (Entered: 10/06/1998)
749 APPLICATION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Lloyd Koger, Gail Bjerkenes, Miller Frank Johnson with memorandum in support for attorney fees and costs for the period July 1, 1998 to August 31, 1998 ; referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III; attachments. (ag) (Entered: 10/06/1998)
750 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson in opposition to defendants' [747−1] objections to order on motion to compel. (ag) (Entered: 10/13/1998)
751 OBJECTIONS by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Myers Kertz, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, Myers Kurtz to [749−1] motion for attorney fees and costs for the period July 1, 1998 to August 31, 1998; attachments. (ag) (Entered: 10/14/1998)
751 REQUEST for oral argument by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Myers Kertz, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, Myers Kurtz regarding: [749−1] motion for attorney fees and costs for the period July 1, 1998 to August 31, 1998. (ag) (Entered: 10/14/1998)
752 ORDER granting [748−1] motion for hearing on discovery plan; setting status conference for 2:30 p.m. on 11/3/98 scheduled for Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III in courtroom 12B, 801 N. Florida Avenue, Tampa, Florida. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III) ctc (ag) (Entered: 10/15/1998)
754 AMENDED NOTICE of Hearing: reset status conference for 2:30 11/10/98 scheduled for Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ctc (ag) Modified on 10/29/1998 (Entered: 10/27/1998)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 76 of 146

10/19/1998 10/26/1998 10/26/1998
11/06/1998 11/06/1998 11/06/1998 11/06/1998 11/06/1998 11/10/1998 11/10/1998 11/10/1998
11/10/1998 11/10/1998

753 NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT of plaintiffs' application for attorneys' fees and costs for the period from 3/1/98 to 4/30/98, filed. (ag) Modified on 10/29/1998 (Entered: 10/20/1998)
755 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson with memorandum in support to require defendants to comply with court monitor's request for access to class members and to mortality and budget information ; exhibits and proposed order attached. (dfd) Modified on 10/29/1998 (Entered: 10/27/1998)
756 ORDER: Upon consideration of the objections made, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's ruling was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to the law. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge's 9/16/98 order is affirmed, and defendants' objections to the order on the motion to compel [747−1] filed 9/28/98 are dismissed. ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (dfd) Modified on 10/29/1998 (Entered: 10/27/1998)
757 RESPONSE by Office of the Monitor to plaintiff's [755−1] motion to require defendants to comply with court monitor's request for to class members and to mortality and budget information and Monitor's update of activitiesi; exhibits attached. (dfd) (Entered: 11/09/1998)
758 MOTION and/or response by State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, Myers Kurtz with memorandum in support to strike [755−1] motion to require defendants to comply with court monitor's request for access to class members to mortality and budget information ; exhibit attached. (dfd) (Entered: 11/09/1998)
759 RESPONSE by USA to plaintiffs' [748−1] motion for hearing on discovery plan. (dfd) (Entered: 11/09/1998)
759 MOTION by USA to adopt discovery plan , to approve specified activities by the Monitor , to schedule regular status conferences referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III; exhibits and proposed orders attached. (dfd) (Entered: 11/09/1998)
760 NOTICE of appearance of co−counsel for State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, Myers Kurtz by attorney Mark S. Dunn (dfd) (Entered: 11/09/1998)
761 MOTION by Fl Dept Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Myers Kertz, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, Myers Kurtz for protective order referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III; proposed order attached. (dfd) (Entered: 11/12/1998)
762 MOTION by Fl Dept Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Myers Kertz, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, Myers Kurtz for permission to file a brief in excess of twenty pages referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III; proposed order attached. (dfd) (Entered: 11/12/1998)
763 RESPONSE by Fl Dept Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Myers Kertz, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, Myers Kurtz to United States' [759−1] motion to adopt discovery plan, [759−2] motion to approve activities by the Monitor, and [759−3] motion to schedule regular status conferences; exhibits attached. (dfd) (Entered: 11/12/1998)
763 BRIEF by Fl Dept Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Myers Kertz, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, Myers Kurtz in support of [761−1] motion for protective order; exhibits attached. (dfd) (Entered: 11/12/1998)
764 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE by Fl Dept Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Myers Kertz, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, Myers Kurtz with [763−1] support memorandum, [763−1] motion response. The

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 77 of 146

11/12/1998 11/12/1998 11/12/1998 11/12/1998
11/13/1998 11/13/1998
11/16/1998 11/16/1998 11/18/1998 11/19/1998
11/20/1998

parties have conferred in good faith regarding the discovery plan and related issues and have been unable to reach agreement. (dfd) (Entered: 11/12/1998)
765 MINUTE ENTRY: status conference held on 11/10/98 before Judge Thomas B. McCoun III. Tape 114/1207−115/2520 (dfd) (Entered: 11/13/1998)
766 ORDER denying [762−1] motion for permission to file a brief in excess of twenty pages ( Signed by Mag.Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 11/13/1998)
767 STIPULATION and order regarding confidentiality by defendant Robert Williams, defendant Florida Department of Health, defendant G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, defendant Myers Kertz, and intervenor−plaintiff USA. (dfd) (Entered: 11/13/1998)
768 ORDER granting [767−1] stipulation regarding confidentiality with the exception of those provisions requiring any material covered by this order and filed with the court to be automatically filed under seal. For each document, object or other material that the parties wish to file under seal, they shall file a Motion to Seal. These motions shall be accompanied by memoranda which set forth, with specificity, the reasons why these particular documents should be filed under seal. ( Signed by Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 11/13/1998)
769 ORDER granting [734−1] motion for Thomas B. York to appear pro hac vice. Thomas B. York, Esquire, will appear specially on behalf of defendants, and the Attorney General's Office will continue to act as co−counsel for the defendants. ( Signed by Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 11/16/1998)
770 ORDER granting in part, denying in part [738−1] motion for attorney fees, and [738−2] motion for costs for the period May 1, 1998 to June 30, 1998. James K. Green is awarded $9,135.00 in fees and $526.12 in costs for May − June 1998, Nina Zollo is awarded $1,716.00 in fees, and her paralegal $18.00 in fees, and Steven J. Schwartz is awarded $2,090.00 in fees for the same period. Court also grants in part, denies in part [749−1] motion for attorney fees and costs for the period July 1, 1998 to August 31, 1998. James K. Green is awarded $11,970.00 in fees and $561.52 in costs for the July − August 1998 period, Nina Zollo is awarded $2,392.50 in fees, and Steven J. Schwartz is awarded $7,810.00 in fees and $144.00 in costs for the same term. See order for more details. ( Signed by Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) MFR 117/1183 ctc (dfd) Modified on 11/16/1998 (Entered: 11/16/1998)
771 SUBMISSION of descriptive documents related to access issues by Office of Monitor. Documents attached. (rjc) (Entered: 11/17/1998)
772 NOTICE of filing exhibit D to objections to application for attorneys fees and costs for the period July 1, 1998 to August 31, 1998 by State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, Myers Kurtz. Exhibit attached. (rjc) (Entered: 11/17/1998)
773 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS on status conference for date of 11/10/98 before Judge Thomas B. McCoun. Transcript filed separately. (jlh) (Entered: 11/18/1998)
774 ORDER granting [755−1] motion to require defendants to comply with court monitor's request for access to class members and to mortality and budget information; denying [758−1] motion to strike [755−1] motion to require defendants to comply with court monitor's request for access to class members to mortality and budget information. The defendants are directed to provide the Monitor with access to such information, to the extent that it has not already been provided, within twenty (20) days from the date of this Order. ( Signed by Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 11/20/1998)
775 APPLICATION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson with memorandum in support for attorneys' fees , and costs for the period 9/1/98 to 10/31/98 referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III; attachments. (dfd) (Entered: 11/23/1998)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 78 of 146

11/25/1998
11/25/1998 11/27/1998 12/04/1998 12/14/1998
12/14/1998 12/17/1998 12/17/1998 12/17/1998 01/06/1999
01/06/1999
01/08/1999

776 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Healthcare, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Myers Kertz, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, Myers Kurtz to [759−1] motion to adopt discovery plan, [759−2] motion to approve specified activities by the Monitor, [759−3] motion to schedule regular status conferences; exhibits attached. (dfd) (Entered: 11/30/1998)
777 UNOPPOSED MOTION by USA to approve discovery plan , and increase the number of interrogatories and depositions referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III; attachments. (dfd) (Entered: 11/30/1998)
778 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to [759−1] motion to adopt discovery plan, [759−2] motion to approve specified activities by the Monitor, [759−3] motion to schedule regular status conferences; exhibits attached. (dfd) (Entered: 11/30/1998)
779 RESPONSE (OBJECTIONS) by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Myers Kertz in opposition to [774−1] order on plaintiff's motion to require defendants to comply with court monitor's request for access to class members and to mortality and budget information. (eec) (Entered: 12/07/1998)
780 MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department Of Healthcare, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Myers Kurtz, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick for permission to file response to plaintiffs' response to the United States' motion to adopt discovery plan, approve specified activities by the monitor, and schedule regular status conferences ; reply to response attached. referred Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) Modified on 12/15/1998 (Entered: 12/15/1998)
781 NOTICE of substitution of parties by Robert Williams, Florida Department Of Healthcare, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Myers Kurtz, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick (dfd) (Entered: 12/15/1998)
782 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson in opposition to [779−1] objections to order on plaintiffs' motion to require defendants to comply with court monitor's request for access to class members and to mortality and budget information; exhibit attached. (dfd) (Entered: 12/18/1998)
783 ORDER denying [780−1] motion for permission to file response to plaintiffs' response to the United States' motion to adopt discovery plan, approve specified activities by the monitor, and schedule regular status conferences ( Signed by Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 12/18/1998)
784 NOTICE of Hearing: set discovery conference for 2:00 1/5/99 Scheduled for Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ctc (dfd) (Entered: 12/18/1998)
785 RECOMMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULING ORDER setting Discovery cutoff 11/15/99; Deadline for filing of dispositive motions 11/30/99; deadline for disclosure of experts, as per agreement, 9/15/99; deadline for Court order mediation 12/31/99; pretrial conference in January 2000 and trial thereafter in January or February 2000. The trial is anticipated to take thirty (30) days. ( signed by Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 01/07/1999)
786 ORDER granting [777−1] motion to approve discovery plan and [777−2] motion to increase the number of interrogatories and depositions; denying as moot [759−1] motion to adopt discovery plan, deferring [759−2] motion to approve specified activities by the Monitor; denying without prejudice [759−3] motion to schedule regular status conferences; and denying without prejudice [761−1] motion for protective order ( Signed by Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 01/07/1999)
787 MINUTE ENTRY: Discovery Conference held on 1/5/99 before Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 01/11/1999)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 79 of 146

01/14/1999 01/15/1999
01/21/1999 01/27/1999 01/29/1999 01/29/1999 02/01/1999 02/01/1999 02/02/1999 02/08/1999
02/08/1999
02/16/1999 02/18/1999 02/18/1999 02/18/1999

788 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS on discovery conference for date of 1/5/99 before Judge Thomas B. McCoun, III. Transcript filed separately. (dfd) (Entered: 01/15/1999)
789 MOTION by State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, Thomas Sellars with memorandum in support to enforce consent decree , and terminate jurisdiction over District Eight referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III; exhibits attached. (dfd) (Entered: 01/19/1999)
790 APPLICATION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson with incorporated memorandum in support for attorneys' fees , and costs for the period 11/1/98 to 12/31/98 referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III; attachments. (dfd) (Entered: 01/22/1999)
791 ORDER denying [759−2] motion to approve specified activities by the Monitor ( Signed by Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 01/28/1999)
792 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson in opposition to [789−1] motion to enforce consent decree, [789−2] motion to terminate jurisdiction over District Eight (dfd) (Entered: 02/01/1999)
792 REQUEST by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson for evidentiary hearing referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 02/01/1999)
793 CASE MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULING ORDER setting Deadline for filing of dispositive motions 11/30/99; Discovery cutoff 11/15/99; Pretrial conference set for 11:30 1/6/00 Scheduled for Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ( signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 02/02/1999)
Jury trial set for term commencing 2/7/00 Scheduled for Judge Susan C. Bucklew (dfd) (Entered: 02/02/1999)
794 MEMORANDUM by USA in opposition to [789−1] motion to enforce consent decree, [789−2] motion terminate jurisdiction over District Eight (dfd) (Entered: 02/03/1999)
795 MOTION by State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, Thomas Sellars for leave to file a reply to plaintiffs' response in opposition to defendants' motion to enforce consent decree and terminate jurisdiction over District Eight and plaintiffs' request for evidentiary hearing referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 02/09/1999)
796 MOTION by State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, Thomas Sellars for leave to file a reply to intervenor's memorandum of law in opposition to defendants' motion to enforce consent decree and terminate jurisdiction over District Eight referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 02/09/1999)
797 EMERGENCY MOTION by State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration, Department of Children and Family Services with memorandum in support for protective order referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 02/16/1999)
798 RESPONSE by USA to [797−1] emergency motion for protective order (dfd) (Entered: 02/19/1999)
799 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to [797−1] emergency motion for protective order (dfd) (Entered: 02/19/1999)
800 ORDER granting [797−1] emergency motion for protective order. Rule 30(b)(6) depositions currently scheduled for 2/19/99 at Tallahassee, Florida are hereby stayed. However, in lieu of the depositions, the court will require the state to answer each area of inquiry as if propounded upon interrogatory. Accordingly,

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 80 of 146

02/19/1999
02/19/1999
02/19/1999 02/25/1999 02/25/1999 03/02/1999 03/09/1999 03/11/1999 03/15/1999 03/17/1999 03/19/1999 03/19/1999 03/25/1999 03/30/1999

within fifteen (15) days of the date of this Order, the defendant shall provide a fully responsive written description of each of the areas of inquiry as set out in the Rule 30(b)(6) notice. (Signed by Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 02/19/1999)
801 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to [795−1] motion for leave to file a reply to plaintiffs' response in opposition to defendants' motion to enforce consent decree and terminate jurisdiction over District Eight and plaintiffs' request for evidentiary hearing (dfd) (Entered: 02/22/1999)
ENDORSED ORDER denying [795−1] motion for leave to file a reply to plaintiffs' response in opposition to defendants' motion to enforce consent decree and terminate jurisdiction over District Eight and plaintiffs' request for evidentiary hearing (Signed by Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 02/22/1999)
ENDORSED ORDER denying [796−1] motion for leave to file a reply to intervenor's memorandum of law in opposition to defendants' motion to enforce consent decree and terminate jurisdiction over District Eight (Signed by Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 02/22/1999)
802 NOTICE of supplemental authority by State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration, Department of Children and Family Services (dfd) (Entered: 02/26/1999)
803 NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT of plaintiffs' [775−1] and [775−2] application for attorneys' fees and costs for the time period 9/1/98 to 10/31/98 filed by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson (dfd) (Entered: 02/26/1999)
ENDORSED ORDER denying as moot [775−1] motion for attorneys' fees and [775−2] motion costs for the period 9/1/98 to 10/31/98 (Signed by Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 03/03/1999)
804 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Department of Children and Family Services for enlargement of time to respond to interrogatories referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun (dfd) (Entered: 03/11/1999)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [804−1] motion for enlargement of time to respond to interrogatories. Defendants shall complete their responses to this Court's ordered interrogatories by 3/23/99. (Signed by Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 03/12/1999)
805 NOTICE of filing proposed budget for 4/1/99 through 6/30/00 by Office of the Monitor (dfd) (Entered: 03/16/1999)
806 MOTION (Request) by USA for Elaine Lubin to withdraw as attorney (smb) (Entered: 03/18/1999)
807 NOTICE OF PARTIAL SETTLEMENT of plaintiffs' application for attorneys' fees and costs for the period from 11/1/98 to 12/31/98 filed by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson (dfd) (Entered: 03/22/1999)
808 APPLICATION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson with memorandum in support for attorneys' fees , and for costs for the period 1/1/99 to 2/28/99 referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 03/22/1999)
809 ORDER granting [806−1] motion for Elaine Lubin to withdraw as attorney (Terminated attorney Elaine R. Lubin for USA) (Signed by Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 03/26/1999)
810 MOTION by Department of Children and Family Services for enlargement of time to file its response to the Monitor's Budget referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 04/01/1999)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 81 of 146

03/30/1999 04/05/1999 04/05/1999 04/09/1999 04/15/1999 04/16/1999 04/16/1999 04/19/1999 04/26/1999 04/26/1999 04/29/1999 04/30/1999
05/03/1999

811 NOTICE of attorney appearance for State of Florida Agency for Health Care Administration by William H. Roberts, Moses Eugene Williams (dfd) (Entered: 04/01/1999)
812 OBJECTION by State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, Thomas Sellars to [808−1] application for attorneys' fees, [808−2] application for costs for the period 1/1/99 to 2/28/99 with incorporated memorandum (dfd) (Entered: 04/06/1999)
812 REQUEST for oral argument by State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, Thomas Sellars regarding [812−1] opposition response (dfd) (Entered: 04/06/1999)
813 AMENDMENT to attached matrix of defendant's objection to plaintiffs' [812−1] application for attorneys' fees and costs for the period 1/1/99 to 2/28/99 with incorporated memorandum and request for oral argument by State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, Thomas Sellars (dfd) (Entered: 04/12/1999)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [810−1] motion for enlargement of time to file its response to the Monitor's Budget. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III), ctc (ag) (Entered: 04/19/1999)
814 OBJECTIONS by State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, Thomas Sellars to Monitor's [805−1] proposed budget for 4/1/99 through 6/30/00. (dfd) (Entered: 04/19/1999)
815 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson in opposition to [812−1] objections to plaintiffs' application for fees and costs (NOTE: THIS PLEADING HAS BEEN STRICKEN PURSUANT TO [873−1] ORDER FILED 7/13/99) (dfd) Modified on 07/15/1999 (Entered: 04/19/1999)
816 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to [813−1] amendment to attached matrix of defendant's objection to plaintiffs' application for attorneys' fees and costs for the period 1/1/99 to 2/28/99 with incorporated memorandum and request for oral argument. (dfd) (Entered: 04/20/1999)
817 MOTION by Office of Monitor with memorandum in support for leave to file reply to defendants' objections to Monitor's proposed budget for 4/1/99 through 6/30/00 referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III; proposed reply attached. (dfd) (Entered: 04/26/1999)
818 MOTION by State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, Thomas Sellars with memorandum in support to strike [815−1] opposition response , or in the alternative for leave to file reply to same referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 04/26/1999)
819 MOTION by State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, Thomas Sellars for Pamela H. Page to withdraw as attorney in this case (rjc) (Entered: 04/30/1999)
820 APPLICATION of Non−Resident Counsel and Designation of Local Counsel as to Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, Thomas Sellars. Local Counsel: Mark S. Dunn from the Office of the Attorney General in Tallahassee. Non−Resident Counsel: Victor P. Stabile. (gkm) (Entered: 05/03/1999)
821 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson in opposition to [818−1] motion to strike [815−1] opposition response (mrh) (Entered: 05/04/1999)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 82 of 146

05/03/1999 05/04/1999 05/07/1999 05/10/1999 05/13/1999
05/17/1999 05/17/1999 05/24/1999 05/25/1999 05/25/1999
06/01/1999 06/01/1999 06/02/1999

822 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to compel response or better responses to plaintiffs' inquiries or, alternatively, to lift stay of depositions referred to Mag.Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (mrh) (Entered: 05/04/1999)
823 NOTICE of Hearing: Motion hearing set for 10:00 5/27/99 for [789−1] motion to enforce consent decree Scheduled for Mag.Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ctc (jlh) (Entered: 05/05/1999)
824 AMENDED NOTICE of Hearing: set oral arguments on Office of the Monitor's notice of filing proposed budget for 4/1/99 through 6/30/00 and status conference on defendants' motion to enforce consent decree and terminate jurisdiction over District Eight for 1:30 5/27/99 Scheduled for Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ctc (dfd) (Entered: 05/10/1999)
825 NOTICE of supplemental authority by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Thomas Sellars (jlh) (Entered: 05/11/1999)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [819−1] motion for Pamela H. Page to withdraw as attorney in this case (Terminated attorney Pamela H. Page for Dept. of Children, attorney Pamela H. Page for Agency for Health, attorney Pamela H. Page for Thomas Sellars, attorney Pamela H. Page for Pam Paulick, attorney Pamela H. Page for Sue Gray, attorney Pamela H. Page for Don Dixon, attorney Pamela H. Page for Lynn Richard, attorney Pamela H. Page for Frances Gibbons, attorney Pamela H. Page for Robert Constantine, attorney Pamela H. Page for Ed Feaver, attorney Pamela H. Page for Lawton Chiles, attorney Pamela H. Page for State of Florida) ( Signed by Mag.Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (gkm) (Entered: 05/18/1999)
826 RESPONSE by State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, Thomas Sellars to [822−1] motion to compel response or better responses to plaintiffs' inquiries, [822−2] motion to lift stay of depositions (dfd) (Entered: 05/18/1999)
827 MOTION by Agency for Health Care Administration for William H. Roberts and Moses E. Williams to withdraw as counsel , and to substitute Vic Stabile and Thomas A. York as counsel referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 05/19/1999)
916 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Healthcare, G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick in opposition to [904−1] motion for protective order regarding the rebuttal tour of Pamela Hyde, J.D. (dfd) (Entered: 08/25/1999)
828 MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, Thomas Sellars for scheduling order , and for expedited consideration of the instant motion referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 05/26/1999)
829 MEMORANDUM by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, Thomas Sellars in support of [828−1] motion for scheduling order, [828−2] motion for expedited consideration of the instant motion (dfd) (Entered: 05/26/1999)
830 MINUTE ENTRY: Oral Argument held on 5/27/99 before Judge McCoun. Argument held on pending matters. Order to follow. Court Reporter: Dennis Miracle (aw) (Entered: 06/01/1999)
831 NOTICE of filing of the June 1997, Office of the Monitor Community Audit Protocol by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars (rm) (Entered: 06/02/1999)
832 RESPONSE by USA to [828−1] motion for scheduling order, [828−2] motion for expedited consideration of the instant motion (dfd) (Entered: 06/02/1999)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 83 of 146

06/02/1999
06/03/1999 06/03/1999 06/03/1999 06/04/1999 06/07/1999 06/07/1999 06/08/1999 06/10/1999
06/10/1999
06/11/1999 06/14/1999

833 ORDER granting [805−1] notice of filing proposed budget for 4/1/99 through 6/30/00; budget is approved in the sum of $472,727.26, denying [817−1] motion for leave to file reply to defendants' objections to Monitor's proposed budget for 4/1/99 through 6/30/00; the Clerk shall return the pleading to counsel for the Monitor, deferring [789−1] motion to enforce consent decree, deferring [789−2] motion terminate jurisdiction over District Eight, denying [828−1] motion for scheduling order, denying [828−2] motion for expedited consideration of the instant motion, granting [827−1] motion for William H. Roberts and Moses E. Williams to withdraw as counsel (Terminated attorneys Moses Eugene Williams, William H. Roberts for Agency for Health Care Administration), granting [827−2] motion to substitute Vic Stabile and Thomas B. York as counsel, denying [822−1] motion to compel response or better responses to plaintiffs' inquiries, denying [822−2] motion to lift stay of depositions (Signed by Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III) (dfd) (Entered: 06/03/1999)
834 NOTICE of attorney appearance for Amicus Curiae Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities by Gordon B. Scott (dfd) (Entered: 06/04/1999)
835 MOTION of counsel for Amicus Curiae Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities, Inc. for Wayne Hampton Basford and Leonard T. Helfand to withdraw as attorneys (dfd) (Entered: 06/04/1999)
836 CONSENT to withdrawal of counsel by Gary H. Blumenthal, Executive Director of Amicus Curiae Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities, Inc. (dfd) (Entered: 06/04/1999)
837 NOTICE of Hearing: set telephone hearing on plaintiffs' application for attorneys' fees and costs for the period 1/1/99 to 2/28/99 (on issue of tours only) for 10:30 6/17/99 Scheduled for Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ctc (dfd) (Entered: 06/07/1999)
838 ORDER dismissing [779−1] opposition response and affirming the Magistrate Judge's [774−1] November 19, 1998 order. (Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 06/08/1999)
839 APPLICATION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson with memorandum in support for attorneys' fees , and costs for the period 3/1/99 to 4/30/99 referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 06/08/1999)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [835−1] motion for Wayne Hampton Basford and Leonard T. Helfand to withdraw as attorneys (Terminated attorneys Wayne Hampton Basford and Leonard T. Helfand for Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities, Inc.) (Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 06/09/1999)
840 MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, Thomas Sellars to extend time for certain expert reports , and for expedited consideration referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 06/11/1999)
841 MEMORANDUM by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, Thomas Sellars in support of [840−1] motion to extend time for certain expert reports, [840−2] motion for expedited consideration (dfd) (Entered: 06/11/1999)
842 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS on oral argument for date of 5/27/99 before Judge Thomas B. McCoun III. Transcript filed separately. (jlh) (Entered: 06/14/1999)
843 MOTION by USA for protective order referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (ag) (Entered: 06/14/1999)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 84 of 146

06/14/1999 06/14/1999 06/14/1999 06/14/1999 06/15/1999 06/16/1999 06/16/1999 06/16/1999 06/17/1999
06/18/1999 06/18/1999 06/18/1999
06/18/1999
06/21/1999
06/21/1999

844 MEMORANDUM by USA in support of [843−1] motion for protective order (ag) (Entered: 06/14/1999)
845 MOTION by USA for expedited consideration of its motion for a protective order referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (ag) (Entered: 06/14/1999)
846 MEMORANDUM by USA in support of [845−1] motion for a expedited consideration of its motion for a protective (ag) (Entered: 06/14/1999)
847 RESPONSE by USA in opposition to [840−1] motion to extend time for certain expert reports, [840−2] motion for expedited consideration (ag) (Entered: 06/14/1999)
848 NOTICE of filing supplemental exhibit in support of its motion for a protective order by USA (dfd) (Entered: 06/16/1999)
849 RESPONSE by State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, Thomas Sellars to [839−1] application for attorneys' fees, [839−2] application costs for the period 3/1/99 to 4/30/99 (dfd) (Entered: 06/18/1999)
850 NOTICE of supplemental authority in support of [808−] objection to plaintiffs' application for attorneys' fees and costs for the period 1/1/99 to 2/28/99 by State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, Thomas Sellars (dfd) (Entered: 06/18/1999)
851 NOTICE of Telephone Hearing: Motion hearing set for 3:30 6/16/99 for [843−1] motion for protective order, [840−1] motion to extend time for certain expert reports, and [840−2] motion for expedited consideration Scheduled for Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ctc (dfd) (Entered: 06/18/1999)
852 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, Thomas Sellars to [845−1] motion for expedited consideration of its motion for a protective order, [843−1] motion for protective order (dfd) Modified on 06/18/1999 (Entered: 06/18/1999)
853 MINUTE ENTRY: motion hearing held on 6/16/99 before Judge Thomas B. McCoun III. All attorneys appeared by phone. Tape: 83/2739−84/1109 (dfd) (Entered: 06/21/1999)
854 MINUTE ENTRY: motion hearing regarding attorneys' fees (tour issue only) held on 6/17/99 before Judge Thomas B. McCoun III. Tape 84/1109−3079 (dfd) (Entered: 06/21/1999)
Motion hearing held re: [845−1] motion for expedited consideration of its motion for a protective order, [843−1] motion for protective order, [840−1] motion to extend time for certain expert reports, [840−2] motion for expedited consideration, [839−1] motion for attorneys' fees, [839−2] motion costs for the period 3/1/99 to 4/30/99 (dfd) (Entered: 06/21/1999)
855 ORDER granting [845−1] motion for expedited consideration of its motion for a protective order, granting in part, denying in part [843−1] motion for protective order, denying as moot [840−1] motion to extend time for certain expert reports, denying as moot [840−2] motion for expedited consideration (Signed by Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 06/21/1999)
856 MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department Of Health, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, Thomas Sellars with memorandum in support for enlargement of time to object to the report and recommendation concerning the Monitor's budget referred to Mag.Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 06/22/1999)
857 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson in support of United States' [843−1] motion for protective order (dfd) (Entered: 06/22/1999)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 85 of 146

06/21/1999 06/21/1999 06/23/1999
06/25/1999
06/25/1999
06/28/1999 06/29/1999 06/29/1999 07/01/1999 07/01/1999 07/01/1999 07/12/1999 07/12/1999

858 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson in opposition to [840−1] second motion to extend time for certain expert reports, [840−2] motion for expedited consideration (dfd) (Entered: 06/22/1999)
ORDER filed 6/7/99 and endorsed order filed 6/8/99 addressed to Mark Gray returned by United States Post Office (unable to forward) (dfd) (Entered: 06/22/1999)
859 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of [856−1] motion for enlargement of time to object to the report and recommendation concerning the Monitor's budget by Robert Williams, Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, Thomas Sellars (dfd) (Entered: 06/24/1999)
860 MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, Thomas Sellars to substitute a rebuttal expert , and for an extension of time for such expert to complete the rebuttal tour and expert report referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 06/28/1999)
861 MEMORANDUM of law by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, Thomas Sellars in support of [860−1] motion to substitute a rebuttal expert, [860−2] motion for an extension of time for such expert to complete the rebuttal tour and expert report (dfd) (Entered: 06/28/1999)
Motion referred: [856−1] motion for enlargement of time to object to the report and recommendation concerning the Monitor's budget referred to Judge Susan C. Bucklew (dfd) (Entered: 06/28/1999)
862 OBJECTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, Thomas Sellars to Monitor's decision to conduct expanded reviews in District 8 (dfd) (Entered: 06/30/1999)
862 EMERGENCY MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, Thomas Sellars to stay Monitor's expanded reviews referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 06/30/1999)
863 OBJECTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick to [833−1] Magistrate's order of June 2, 1999 (dfd) Modified on 07/22/1999 (Entered: 07/02/1999)
864 RESPONSE by Office of the Monitor to defendants' [862−1] objection to Monitor's decision to conduct expanded reviews in District 8 and emergency motion to stay Monitor's expanded reviews (dfd) Modified on 07/02/1999 (Entered: 07/02/1999)
865 STATUS REPORT as to Class Member Master List by Office of the Monitor (dfd) (Entered: 07/02/1999)
866 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson in opposition to [863−1] objection to Magistrate's order of 6/2/99 (dfd) (Entered: 07/13/1999)
867 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson in opposition to [862−1] motion to stay Monitor's expanded reviews, [862−1] objection to Monitor's decision to conduct expanded reviews in District 8 (dfd) (Entered: 07/13/1999)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 86 of 146

07/13/1999 07/13/1999 07/13/1999 07/13/1999 07/13/1999 07/13/1999
07/14/1999
07/15/1999
07/19/1999 07/19/1999
07/20/1999
07/20/1999 07/21/1999 07/22/1999

868 NOTICE of filing supplemental exhibits in support of their pending applications for attorneys' fees by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson (dfd) (Entered: 07/15/1999)
869 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger in opposition to [856−1] motion for enlargement of time to object to the report and recommendation concerning the Monitor's budget (dfd) (Entered: 07/15/1999)
870 RESPONSE by USA in opposition to [860−1] motion to substitute a rebuttal expert, [860−2] motion for an extension of time for such expert to complete the rebuttal tour and expert report (dfd) (Entered: 07/15/1999)
871 RESPONSE by USA in opposition to [862−1] emergency motion to stay Monitor's expanded reviews, defendants' [862−1] objection to Monitor's decision to conduct expanded reviews in District 8 (dfd) (Entered: 07/15/1999)
872 ORDER denying [862−1] motion to stay Monitor's expanded reviews (Signed by Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 07/15/1999)
873 ORDER granting [818−1] motion to strike [815−1] opposition response, striking [815−1] opposition response. The Clerk is directed to return this document to plaintiffs' counsel. The Court grants in part, denies in part [808−1] application for attorneys' fees, and [808−2] application for costs for the period 1/1/99 to 2/28/99. James K. Green is awarded $32,607.50 in fees and $1,355.64 in costs. Steven J. Schwartz is awarded $9,957.75 in fees and $841.30 in costs. Nina Zollo is awarded $10,585.50 in fees, together with $4,410 in paralegal fees. (Signed by Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 07/15/1999)
874 REQUEST for oral argument via letter by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick re: [870−1] opposition response (dfd) (Entered: 07/15/1999)
875 MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick to supplement defendants' response to plaintiffs' application for attorneys' fees and costs for the period 3/1/99 to 4/30/99 referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 07/16/1999)
876 MINUTE ENTRY: phone hearing regarding motion for protective order on the tour of Raymond Brien held on 7/19/99 before Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 07/20/1999)
877 ORDER granting the United States' emergency motion for a protective order regarding the tour of Raymond Brien (not yet filed with the Court) to the extent that Brien will be allowed to conduct a rebuttal tour on the issue of community services. (Signed by Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III) ctc (dfd) Modified on 07/20/1999 (Entered: 07/20/1999)
878 OPPOSITION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick to United States motion for a protective order regarding the tour of Raymond Brien (not yet filed with Court). (dfd) (Entered: 07/21/1999)
879 NOTICE of filing District 8 Report by Office of the Monitor; report filed separately. (dfd) (Entered: 07/21/1999)
880 OPPOSITION by USA to defendants' [863−1] objection to Magistrate's order of 6/2/99 (dfd) (Entered: 07/22/1999)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [875−1] motion to supplement defendants' response to plaintiffs' application for attorneys' fees and costs for the period 3/1/99 to 4/30/99 (Signed by Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 07/23/1999)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 87 of 146

07/23/1999 07/27/1999 07/28/1999 07/28/1999 07/30/1999
07/30/1999 07/30/1999 08/02/1999 08/09/1999 08/09/1999 08/09/1999
08/09/1999 08/09/1999 08/09/1999
08/09/1999

881 MOTION by USA joinding request for oral argument on defendants' motion to substitute a rebuttal expert and for an extension of time to complete the rebuttal tour and expert report (smb) (Entered: 07/27/1999)
882 MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Thomas Sellars for leave to file memorandum longer than 20 pages ; proposed memorandum attached. (mrh) (Entered: 07/28/1999)
883 REPORT of compliance of State of Florida, Department of Children and Families District 8 by monitor Linda L. Glenn. Filed separately. (rm) Modified on 07/29/1999 (Entered: 07/29/1999)
884 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS on Hearing re: motion for protective order for date of 7/19/99 before Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun, III. Transcript filed separately. (rm) (Entered: 07/29/1999)
885 ORDER granting [860−1] motion to substitute a rebuttal expert. Dr. David Schretlen is substituted for Dr. Carlton Gass. Granting [860−2] motion for an extension of time for such expert to complete the rebuttal tour and expert report. Dr. Schretlen's rebuttal report shall be submitted by 8/20/99. Granting [874−1] request for oral argument and [881−1] motion joining request for oral argument on defendants' motion to substitute a rebuttal expert and for an extension of time to complete the rebuttal tour and expert report. ( Signed by Mag.Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (sak) (Entered: 08/02/1999)
886 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Thomas Sellars in opposition to [872−1] order (jlg) (Entered: 08/02/1999)
886 EMERGENCY MOTION by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Thomas Sellars to stay expanded reviews (jlg) (Entered: 08/02/1999)
887 NOTICE to the Court of difficulties in carrying out the Monitor's responsibilities by the Office of the Monitor (dfd) (Entered: 08/04/1999)
888 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to defendant's [886−1] objection to Magistrate's 7/13/99 order on Monitor's decision to conduct expanded reviews in District 8 and emergency motion to stay such expanded reviews. (dfd) (Entered: 08/10/1999)
889 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson in opposition to defendants' objections to Magistrate Judge's order of 7/13/99 awarding fees (not filed with Court) (dfd) (Entered: 08/10/1999)
890 NOTICE of filing exhibits in support of plaintiffs' [889−1] response in opposition to defendants' objections to Magistrate Judge's order of 7/13/99 and motion to reconsider the Court's order granting the motion of the United States to intervene in this action by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson (dfd) (Entered: 08/10/1999)
891 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson in opposition to [882−1] motion for leave to file memorandum longer than 20 pages (dfd) (Entered: 08/10/1999)
892 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to [883−1] Monitor's report on compliance of State of Florida Department of Children and Families in District 8 (dfd) (Entered: 08/10/1999)
893 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Healthcare, G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick to [887−1] Monitor's notice to the Court (dfd) (Entered: 08/11/1999)
893 MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Healthcare, G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick with memorandum in support for an order to restrain the Monitor referred

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 88 of 146

08/09/1999 08/10/1999 08/10/1999 08/11/1999 08/11/1999
08/11/1999
08/11/1999
08/12/1999 08/12/1999 08/12/1999 08/12/1999 08/12/1999 08/12/1999

to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 08/11/1999)
894 NOTICE of filing declaration of Thomas York by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Healthcare, G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick; declaration attached. (dfd) (Entered: 08/11/1999)
895 OBJECTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Healthcare, G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick to [883−1] Monitor's 7/19/99 report to Magistrate Judge regarding compliance of District 8 (dfd) (Entered: 08/11/1999)
895 MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Healthcare, G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick with memorandum in support to strike [883−1] Monitor's report referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 08/11/1999)
Motions no longer referred: [886−1] motion to stay expanded reviews, [882−1] motion for leave to file memorandum longer than 20 pages per instructions from Judge McCoun's chambers. (dfd) (Entered: 08/11/1999)
896 OBJECTIONS by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Healthcare, G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick to [873−1] order (Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation) of 7/13/99 (filed pursuant to [897−1] order) (dfd) Modified on 08/12/1999 (Entered: 08/12/1999)
896 MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Healthcare, G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick with memorandum in support to reconsider [705−1] order granting the motion of the United States to intervene in this action referred to Judge Susan C. Bucklew (filed pursuant to [897−1] order) (dfd) (Entered: 08/12/1999)
897 ORDER dismissing [863−1] objection to Magistrate's order of 6/2/99 filed 7/1/99, dismissing [886−1] objections to Magistrate's 7/13/99 order on Monitor's decision to conduct expanded reviews in District 8, denying [886−1] emergency motion to stay expanded reviews, dismissing [896−1] objectiosn to Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation of 7/13/99, denying [896−1] motion to reconsider Court's [705−1] order granting the motion of the United States to intervene in this action, granting [882−1] motion for leave to file memorandum longer than 20 pages. (Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 08/12/1999)
898 NOTICE of attorney appearance for USA by Joseph R. Zogby (dfd) (Entered: 08/13/1999)
899 RESPONSE by USA in opposition to [896−1] motion to reconsider [705−1] order granting the motion of the United States to intervene in this action (dfd) (Entered: 08/13/1999)
900 MOTION by Office of the Monitor for extension of time to file a response to defendants' motion for an order to retrain the Monitor referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 08/13/1999)
901 MOTION by Office of the Monitor for extension of time to file a response to defendants' emergency motion to stay expanded reviews (dfd) (Entered: 08/13/1999)
902 TRANSCRIPT (AUDIOTAPE) OF PROCEEDINGS on telephonic motion hearing for date of 6/16/99 before Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun. Transcript filed separately. (dfd) (Entered: 08/13/1999)
903 TRANSCRIPT (AUDIOTAPE) OF PROCEEDINGS on telephonic motion hearing for date of 6/17/99 before Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun. Transcript filed

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 89 of 146

08/13/1999 08/13/1999 08/18/1999 08/19/1999 08/20/1999 08/20/1999 08/23/1999 08/23/1999 08/23/1999 08/23/1999 08/23/1999 08/23/1999
08/26/1999 08/26/1999 08/27/1999
08/30/1999

separately. (dfd) (Entered: 08/13/1999)
904 EMERGENCY MOTION by USA for protective order regarding the rebuttal tour of Pamela Hyde, J.D. referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 08/13/1999)
905 MEMORANDUM by USA in support of [904−1] emergency motion for protective order regarding the rebuttal tour of Pamela Hyde, J.D. (dfd) (Entered: 08/13/1999)
906 RESPONSE by Office of the Monitor to [893−1] motion for an order to restrain the Monitor (dfd) (Entered: 08/19/1999)
907 NOTICE of filing of attachment to Office of the Monitor's response to defendant's motion for an order to restratin the Monitor by The Office of the Monitor (dfd) (Entered: 08/20/1999)
908 MOTION by USA requesting modifications to the discovery plan referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (smb) (Entered: 08/23/1999)
909 MEMORANDUM by USA in support of [908−1] motion requesting modifications to the discovery plan. (smb) (Entered: 08/23/1999)
910 RESPONSE by monitor Dorothy J. Rowe to [880−1] opposition (objection) response of monitor's 7/19/99 report to magistrate judge regarding compliance of District 8 and motion to strike said report (jlh) (Entered: 08/23/1999)
911 MOTION by USA to consolidate two pending motions , and to expedite pending motions (jlh) (Entered: 08/24/1999)
912 MEMORANDUM by USA in support of [911−1] motion to consolidate two pending motions, [911−2] motion to expedite pending motions (jlh) (Entered: 08/24/1999)
913 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to [895−1] motion to strike [883−1] Monitor's report (wlb) (Entered: 08/24/1999)
914 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to [893−1] motion for an order to restrain the Monitor (wlb) (Entered: 08/24/1999)
915 NOTICE of filing declaration of Dean Pastras, LCSW, in support of their objections to monitor's 7/19/99 report to Magistrate Judge regarding compliance of District 8 and motion to strike said report by Robert Williams, Thomas Sellars (affidavit attached to this notice) (wlb) Modified on 08/24/1999 (Entered: 08/24/1999)
917 RESPONSE by USA in opposition to [895−1] motion to strike [883−1] Monitor's 7/19/99 report to Magistrate Judge regarding compliance of District 8 (dfd) (Entered: 08/27/1999)
918 NOTICE of joinder in the United States' motion requesting modification of the discovery plan by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson (dfd) (Entered: 08/30/1999)
919 ORDER denying [911−1] motion to consolidate two pending motions, denying [911−2] motion to expedite pending motions, granting [904−1] motion for protective order regarding the rebuttal tour of Pamela Hyde, J.D. The defendants shall cooperate with the United States in permitting Ms. Hyde to conclude her rebuttal tour. Thereafter, Ms. Hyde shall prepare and the United States shall promptly serve, the rebuttal expert report. (Signed by Mag.Judge Thomas B. McCoun III) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 08/30/1999)
920 APPLICATION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson with memorandum in support for attorneys' fees , and costs for the period 5/1/99 to 6/30/99 referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 08/31/1999)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 90 of 146

08/30/1999
08/30/1999 09/01/1999
09/02/1999
09/02/1999 09/09/1999 09/10/1999
09/10/1999
09/13/1999 09/13/1999 09/14/1999 09/16/1999 09/16/1999 09/16/1999 09/20/1999 09/28/1999 10/01/1999

921 MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick to strike [917−1] opposition response to defendants' motion to strike Monitor's report referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 08/31/1999)
922 NOTICE of substitution of counsel Robert J. Shapiro for Nina M. Zollo by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson (dfd) (Entered: 08/31/1999)
923 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick in opposition to [908−1] motion requesting modifications to the discovery plan (dfd) (Entered: 09/02/1999)
924 SUBSTITUTION OF EXHIBIT to opposition to United States' motion to modify discovery plan by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick (dfd) (Entered: 09/03/1999)
925 PRELIMINARY FACT WITNESS LIST by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson (dfd) (Entered: 09/03/1999)
926 RESPONSE OBJECTIONS by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor in opposition to [920−1] motion for attorneys' fees covering the period May−June 1999 (jlh) (Entered: 09/10/1999)
927 NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL of the portion (document #886) of the court's [897−1] order by Robert Williams, Gregory L. Coler, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley. Appeal Information Sheet Sent to Appellant. Fee Status: unpaid Certificate of Readiness on 9/27/99 (jlg) Modified on 03/30/2000 (Entered: 09/13/1999)
928 NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL of the portion (document #896) of the court's [897−1] order by Robert Williams, Gregory L. Coler, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley Appeal Information Sheet Sent to Appellant. Fee Status: unpaid Certificate of Readiness due on 9/27/99 (jlg) Modified on 03/30/2000 (Entered: 09/13/1999)
NOTIFICATION of Requirements When Appeal Filing Fee Not Paid. Address appeal filing fee by 10/4/99 (jlg) (Entered: 09/13/1999)
Certified copies of notice of appeal, judgment/order under appeal, and docket transmitted to USCA: [928−1] appeal, [927−1] appeal ctc (jlg) (Entered: 09/13/1999)
929 OPPOSITION by USA to [921−1] motion to strike [917−1] opposition response to defendants' motion to strike Monitor's report (dfd) (Entered: 09/16/1999)
USCA appeal fees received $ 105.00 Receipt # T000793 Balance due $ 0 (dlg) (Entered: 09/16/1999)
USCA appeal fees received $ 105.00 Receipt # T000794 Balance due $ 0 (dlg) (Entered: 09/16/1999)
TRANSMITTAL to USCA [0−0] fee appeal, [0−0] fee appeal re: forwarding copies of paid appeal filing fees. (dlg) (Entered: 09/16/1999)
NOTICE assigning 11th Circuit case number re: [928−1] appeal, [927−1] appeal USCA NUMBER: 99−13458−B (crs) (Entered: 09/22/1999)
930 Transcript requested [927−1] appeal, [928−1] appeal. Appeal Information Sheet filed. (All necessary transcripts on file) (crs) (Entered: 09/29/1999)
931 NOTICE of Hearing: set oral argument Scheduled for Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III to 2:00 10/26/99 for [908−1] motion requesting modifications to the

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 91 of 146

10/04/1999
10/13/1999 10/13/1999 10/13/1999
10/14/1999 10/15/1999 10/18/1999 10/18/1999 10/18/1999
10/19/1999 10/20/1999 10/25/1999 10/25/1999

discovery plan, for [893−1] motion for an order to restrain the Monitor, for [893−1] response object ctc (dfd) (Entered: 10/04/1999)
932 MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Healthcare, G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick with memorandum in support to compel the Monitors to sit for deposition , and to produce documents referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 10/05/1999)
933 MEMORANDUM by The Office of the Monitor in opposition to [932−1] motion to compel the Monitors to sit for deposition, [932−2] motion to produce documents (dfd) (Entered: 10/14/1999)
934 OBJECTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick to Monitor's decision to conduct expanded review in District 6 without using agreed upon exit criteria (dfd) (Entered: 10/14/1999)
934 EXPEDITED MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick with memorandum in support to stay said review (Monitor's decision to conduct expanded review in District 6 without using agreed upon exit criteria) referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 10/14/1999)
935 MEMORANDUM by Office of the Monitor in opposition to [934−1] motion to stay said review (Monitor's decision to conduct expanded review in District 6 without using agreed upon exit criteria), [934−1] opposition response (dfd) (Entered: 10/15/1999)
936 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson for extension of time to respond to defendants' motion to compel the Monitors to sit for deposition and to produce documents referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 10/18/1999)
REQUEST via e−mail from USCA dated 10/18/99 for documents #833, 872 and 873. (crs) (Entered: 10/18/1999)
TRANSMITTAL to USCA re: copies of documents #833,872 and 873 per request. (crs) (Entered: 10/18/1999)
937 AMENDED NOTICE of Hearing: set oral arguments Scheduled for Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III at 2:00 10/26/99 for [934−1] opposition response, [932−1] motion to compel the Monitors to sit for deposition, [932−2] motion to produce documents, [908−1] motion requesting modifications to the discovery plan, [893−1] motion for an order to restrain the Monitor, and [893−1] response objection ctc (dfd) Modified on 10/19/1999 (Entered: 10/19/1999)
ENDORSED ORDER denying [936−1] motion for extension of time to respond to defendants' motion to compel the Monitors to sit for deposition and to produce documents (Signed by Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 10/20/1999)
938 APPLICATION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson with memorandum in support for attorneys' fees , and costs for the period 7/1/99 to 8/31/99 referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 10/22/1999)
RECEIPT acknowledgement from USCA dated 10/20/99 re: received copies of documents #833,872 and 873. (crs) (Entered: 10/25/1999)
939 NOTICE of filing review and response regarding the Monitor's response to the 8/6/99 clinical services management's report to the State of Florida in Johnson v. Sellars with declaration of Dean Pastras, LCSW and 10/8/99 correspondence from Linda Glenn, Monitor, to Jason Vail, Assistant Attorney General by Robert

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 92 of 146

10/25/1999 10/26/1999 10/26/1999
11/01/1999 11/01/1999 11/04/1999 11/04/1999 11/08/1999
11/09/1999
11/09/1999
11/10/1999 11/10/1999

Williams, Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick (dfd) (Entered: 10/26/1999)
940 SECOND LIST OF FACT WITNESSES by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson (dfd) (Entered: 10/27/1999)
941 MINUTE ENTRY: oral argument held on 10/26/99 before Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III. Court Reporter: Kathleen Walden Tape: 153/1478−154/143 (dfd) (Entered: 10/27/1999)
Miscellaneous hearing held re: [934−1] motion to stay said review (Monitor's decision to conduct expanded review in District 6 without using agreed upon exit criteria), [932−1] motion to compel the Monitors to sit for deposition, [932−2] motion to produce documents, [908−1] motion requesting modifications to the discovery plan, [893−1] motion for an order to restrain the Monitor (dfd) (Entered: 10/27/1999)
942 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Thomas Sellars in opposition to [938−1] motion for attorneys' fees, [938−2] motion costs for the period 7/1/99 to 8/31/99 (jlh) (Entered: 11/02/1999)
943 MOTION by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Thomas Sellars for leave to file memorandum in excess of 20 pages (jlh) (Entered: 11/02/1999)
944 ORDER referring case to mediation. Conduct mediation conference on or before 1/17/00. (Signed by Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III) Lead counsel Weinstein to coordinate dates. ctc (dfd) (Entered: 11/05/1999)
944 NOTICE of Hearing: reset pretrial conference for 9:30 1/18/00 Scheduled for Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ctc (dfd) (Entered: 11/05/1999)
945 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson in opposition to [934−1] motion to stay said review (Monitor's decision to conduct expanded review in District 6 without using agreed upon exit criteria), [934−1] objection to Monitor's decision to conduct expanded review in District 6 (NOTE: THIS PLEADING HAS BEEN STRICKEN PURSUANT TO [1010−1] ORDER FILED 1/21/00) (dfd) Modified on 01/24/2000 (Entered: 11/09/1999)
946 MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, Thomas Sellars to strike the second reports of Dr. Jeffrey Geller and Pamela S. Hyde , or alternatively, to permit rebuttal , and for expedited consideration referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 11/10/1999)
947 MEMORANDUM by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, Thomas Sellars in support of [946−1] motion to strike the second reports of Dr. Jeffrey Geller and Pamela S. Hyde, [946−2] motion to permit rebuttal, [946−3] motion for expedited consideration (dfd) (Entered: 11/10/1999)
List of Mediators mailed to General Counsel at Tallahassee, upon request. (map) (Entered: 11/10/1999)
948 MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick to permit Dr. Mary Jeanne Groesbeck, DNSc, ARNP, CS to testify as an expert witness without retaliation , or alternatively, to substitute an expert and permit rebuttal , and for expedited consideration referred to Mag.Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 11/15/1999)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 93 of 146

11/10/1999
11/12/1999 11/15/1999 11/15/1999 11/15/1999 11/15/1999
11/19/1999
11/22/1999
11/26/1999 11/29/1999 12/01/1999 12/01/1999 12/02/1999 12/02/1999

949 MEMORANDUM by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick in support of [948−1] motion to permit Dr. Mary Jeanne Groesbeck, DNSc, ARNP, CS to testify as an expert witness without retaliation, [948−2] motion to substitute an expert and permit rebuttal, [948−3] motion for expedited consideration (dfd) (Entered: 11/15/1999)
950 ORDER denying [908−1] motion requesting modifications to the discovery plan, deferring [932−1] motion to compel the Monitors to sit for deposition, deferring [932−2] motion to produce documents (Signed by Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 11/16/1999)
951 MOTION by USA (unopposed) to extend the time in which to select a mediator referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 11/16/1999)
952 MEMORANDUM by USA in support of [951−1] motion (unopposed) to extend the time in which to select a mediator (dfd) (Entered: 11/16/1999)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [943−1] motion for leave to file memorandum in excess of 20 pages (Signed by Mag.Judge Thomas B. McCoun III) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 11/16/1999)
953 MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick with memorandum in support to strike plaintiffs' [945−1] response to defendants' objection to Monitor's decision to conduct expanded review in District 6 as untimely filed referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 11/16/1999)
955 NOTICE of filing class plaintiffs' response to defendants' interrogatories by Robert Williams, Flordia Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick (dfd) (Entered: 11/23/1999)
954 MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick with memorandum in support to compel class plaintiffs' answers to defendants' interrogatories , for fees , and for costs referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 11/23/1999)
956 RESPONSE by USA to [946−1] motion to strike the second reports of Dr. Jeffrey Geller and Pamela S. Hyde, [946−2] motion to permit rebuttal, [946−3] motion for expedited consideration (dfd) (Entered: 11/29/1999)
957 RESPONSE by USA regarding [948−1] motion to permit Dr. Mary Jeanne Groesbeck, DNSc, ARNP, CS to testify as an expert witness without retaliation, [948−2] motion to substitute an expert and permit rebuttal, [948−3] motion for expedited consideration (dfd) (Entered: 11/30/1999)
ORDER entered 11/12/99 addressed to Mark Gray returned by United States Post Office (no forward order on file) (dfd) (Entered: 12/02/1999)
958 NOTICE of mediation: set mediation conference for 4 whole days in January, beginning at 9:30 1/5/00 (map) (Entered: 12/02/1999)
959 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to [953−1] motion to strike plaintiffs' [945−1] response to defendants' objection to Monitor's decision to conduct expanded review in District 6 as untimely filed (mrh) (Entered: 12/03/1999)
ENDORSED ORDER filed 11/1/99 addressed Mark Gray returned from United States Post Office (no forward order on file) (dfd) Modified on 12/03/1999 (Entered: 12/03/1999)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 94 of 146

12/06/1999 12/06/1999 12/08/1999
12/08/1999 12/13/1999 12/13/1999 12/13/1999
12/14/1999
12/15/1999 12/15/1999 12/15/1999 12/15/1999 12/16/1999 12/17/1999

960 MOTION by USA (emergency) for protective order prohibiting defendants' expert Dr. Jeffrey S. Janofsky from touring G. Pierce Wood , or in the alternative (emergency) to exclude testimony by Dr. Janofsky referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 12/06/1999)
961 MEMORANDUM by USA in support of [960−1] motion (emergency) for protective order prohibiting defendants' expert Dr. Jeffrey S. Janofsky from touring G. Pierce Wood, [960−2] motion (emergency) to exclude testimony by Dr. Janofsky (dfd) (Entered: 12/06/1999)
962 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson (unopposed) for extension of time within which to serve memorandum in opposition to defendants' motion to compel class plaintiffs' answers to defendants' interrogatories and motion for fees and costs referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 12/09/1999)
963 ORDER appointing Peter J. Grilli as mediator in this action. (Signed by Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 12/09/1999)
964 MOTION by USA for protective order prohibiting defendants expert Scott Canfield from touring g. Pierce Wood and Community placements referred to Mag.Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (jlh) (Entered: 12/13/1999)
965 MEMORANDUM by USA in support of [964−1] motion for protective order prohibiting defendants expert Scott Canfield from touring g. Pierce Wood and Community placements (jlh) (Entered: 12/13/1999)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [962−1] motion (unopposed) for extension of time within which to serve memorandum in opposition to defendants' motion to compel class plaintiffs' answers to defendants' interrogatories and motion for fees and costs, Response to motion reset to 12/14/99 for [954−1] motion to compel class plaintiffs' answers to defendants' interrogatories, reset to 12/14/99 for [954−2] motion for fees, reset to 12/14/99 for [954−3] motion for costs ( Signed by Mag.Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (wlb) (Entered: 12/14/1999)
966 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, Thomas Sellars to [960−1] motion (emergency) for protective order prohibiting defendants' expert Dr. Jeffrey S. Janofsky from touring G. Pierce Wood, [960−2] motion (emergency) to exclude testimony by Dr. Janofsky (dfd) (Entered: 12/15/1999)
967 MOTION by USA to compel production of documents referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 12/16/1999)
968 MEMORANDUM by USA in support of [967−1] motion to compel production of documents (dfd) (Entered: 12/16/1999)
969 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE by USA with Local Rule 3.01(g) as to [967−1] motion to compel production of documents (dfd) (Entered: 12/16/1999)
970 ORDER granting in part, denying in part [839−1] motion for attorneys' fees and [839−2] motion for costs for the period 3/1/99 to 4/30/99. See order for details. (Signed by Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 12/16/1999)
971 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson in opposition to [954−1] motion to compel class plaintiffs' answers to defendants' interrogatories, [954−2] motion for fees, [954−3] motion for costs (dfd) (Entered: 12/16/1999)
972 RESPONSE by Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, Thomas Sellars to [964−1] motion for protective order prohibiting defendants expert Scott Canfield from touring G. Pierce Wood and Community placements (dfd) (Entered: 12/20/1999)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 95 of 146

12/20/1999
12/20/1999 12/22/1999 12/22/1999 12/27/1999 12/27/1999 12/28/1999 12/28/1999 12/30/1999 12/30/1999 12/30/1999
12/30/1999 01/04/2000

973 REPLY by Robert Williams, Florida Dept Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick to response to [954−1] motion to compel class plaintiffs' answers to defendants' interrogatories, [954−2] motion for fees, [954−3] motion for costs. NOTE: PLEADING STRICKEN and returned to counsel for defendants pursuant to [980−1] order entered 12/28/99. (dfd) Modified on 12/29/1999 (Entered: 12/21/1999)
974 MOTION by Advocacy Center with memorandum in support for leave to enlarge participation as amicus curiae referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 12/21/1999)
975 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to strike [973−1] response reply referred to Mag.Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (mrh) (Entered: 12/23/1999)
976 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to [974−1] motion for leave to enlarge participation as amicus curiae (mrh) (Entered: 12/23/1999)
977 MOTION by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Thomas Sellars with memorandum in support to stay consideration of class plaintiffs' motions for attorneys' fees (jlh) (Entered: 12/28/1999)
978 RESPONSE (objection) by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Thomas Sellars in opposition to [970−1] order awarding fees and costs for the period March−April 1999 (jlh) (Entered: 12/28/1999)
979 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Thomas Sellars in opposition to [967−1] motion to compel production of documents (jlh) (Entered: 12/28/1999)
980 ORDER granting [975−1] motion to strike [973−1] response reply. Defendants' [973−1] reply to response to motion to compel class plaintiffs' answers to defendants' interrogatories and motion for fees and costs is stricken. The Clerk is directed to return the pleading to counsel for defendants. ( Signed by Mag.Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (mrh) (Entered: 12/29/1999)
981 MOTION by USA for rulings on outstanding motions (jlg) (Entered: 12/30/1999)
982 MEMORANDUM by USA in support of [981−1] motion for rulings on outstanding motions (jlg) (Entered: 12/30/1999)
983 ORDER granting [981−1] motion for rulings on outstanding motions, Motion hearing set for 2:00 1/11/00 for [964−1] motion for protective order prohibiting defendants expert Scott Canfield from touring g. Pierce Wood and Community placements, set for 2:00 1/11/00 for [960−1] motion (emergency) for protective order prohibiting defendants' expert Dr. Jeffrey S. Janofsky from touring G. Pierce Wood, set for 2:00 1/11/00 for [960−2] motion (emergency) to exclude testimony by Dr. Janofsky, set for 2:00 1/11/00 for [948−1] motion to permit Dr. Mary Jeanne Groesbeck, DNSc, ARNP, CS to testify as an expert witness without retaliation, set for 2:00 1/11/00 for [948−2] motion to substitute an expert and permit rebuttal, set for 2:00 1/11/00 for [948−3] motion for expedited consideration, set for 2:00 1/11/00 for [946−2] motion to permit rebuttal, set for 2:00 1/11/00 for [946−3] motion for expedited consideration Scheduled for Mag.Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ( Signed by Mag.Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 12/30/1999)
984 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Thomas Sellars to [974−1] motion for leave to enlarge participation as amicus curiae (jlh) (Entered: 01/03/2000)
985 NOTICE of supplemental exhibit to the United States' emergency protective order prohibiting defendants' expert Dr. Janofsky from touring G. Pierce Wood or in the alternative to exclude the testimonry of Dr. Janofsky and the United States' emergency motion for a protective order prohibiting defendants' expert Scott Canfield from touring G. Pierce Wood and community placements by USA (dfd) (Entered: 01/05/2000)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 96 of 146

01/05/2000 01/06/2000 01/10/2000 01/10/2000 01/11/2000
01/11/2000
01/11/2000
01/11/2000 01/12/2000 01/12/2000 01/12/2000
01/14/2000 01/14/2000

ORDER entered 12/28/99 addressed to Mark Gray returned by the United States Post Office (not deliverable as addressed, unable to forward) (dfd) (Entered: 01/06/2000)
986 NOTICE of adoption of United States' mediation statement and incorporation by reference of plaintiffs' letter previously submitted to defendants by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson (dfd) (Entered: 01/07/2000)
987 MINUTE ENTRY: telephonic status conference held on 1/10/00 before Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III. Tape: 4/686−983. (dfd) Modified on 01/11/2000 (Entered: 01/11/2000)
Telephonic status conference held (dfd) (Entered: 01/11/2000)
988 MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, for leave to amend [731−1] answer to complaint in intervention referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III; proposed amended answer attached to the accompanying memorandum in support. (dfd) Modified on 01/12/2000 (Entered: 01/12/2000)
989 MEMORANDUM by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick in support of [988−1] motion for leave to amend [731−1] answer to complaint in intervention; proposed amended answer attached. (dfd) Modified on 01/12/2000 (Entered: 01/12/2000)
990 MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick to strike reports of United States' experts not reasonably related to rebuttal , or, alternatively to permit rebuttal , and for expedited consideration referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) Modified on 01/14/2000 (Entered: 01/12/2000)
991 MEMORANDUM by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick in support of [990−1] motion to strike reports of United States' experts not reasonably related to rebuttal (dfd) (Entered: 01/12/2000)
992 APPLICATION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson with memorandum in support for attorneys' fees , and for costs for the period 9/1/99 to 10/31/99 referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 01/13/2000)
993 MINUTE ENTRY: motion hearing held on 1/12/00 before Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III. Tape: 7/387−9/109 (dfd) (Entered: 01/13/2000)
Motion hearing held re: [964−1] motion for protective order prohibiting defendants expert Scott Canfield from touring G. Pierce Wood and Community placements, [960−1] motion (emergency) for protective order prohibiting defendants' expert Dr. Jeffrey S. Janofsky from touring G. Pierce Wood, [960−2] motion (emergency) to exclude testimony by Dr. Janofsky Motion, [948−1] motion to permit Dr. Mary Jeanne Groesbeck, DNSc, ARNP, CS to testify as an expert witness without retaliation, [948−2] motion to substitute an expert and permit rebuttal, [948−3] motion for expedited consideration, [946−2] motion to permit rebuttal, [946−3] motion for expedited consideration (dfd) (Entered: 01/13/2000)
994 TRIAL CALENDAR for trial term commencing 2/1/00 at 9:00 a.m. Estimated length of non−jury trial is four weeks. (Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew) ctc (dfd) Modified on 01/18/2000 (Entered: 01/14/2000)
Deadline updated; reset bench trial for term commencing 9:00 2/1/00 Scheduled for Judge Susan C. Bucklew (dfd) (Entered: 01/18/2000)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 97 of 146

01/14/2000 01/18/2000 01/18/2000 01/18/2000 01/19/2000 01/19/2000 01/19/2000 01/20/2000
01/20/2000 01/20/2000 01/20/2000 01/20/2000 01/20/2000 01/21/2000

998 MEDIATION REPORT. Mediation Hearing Held: 1/4,5,10,11/2000. "Case was neither settled nor impassed". No future mediations are scheduled. Peter Grilli, Mediator. (map) (Entered: 01/19/2000)

995 JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT. (jlh) (Entered: 01/19/2000)

996 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson in opposition to [977−1] motion to stay consideration of class plaintiffs' motions for attorneys' fees (dfd) (Entered: 01/19/2000)

997 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to extend time to respond to defendants' objections to Magistrate's order awarding attorneys' fees for the period March−April, 1999 referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 01/19/2000)

999 MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick for continuance of trial date to allow mediation to proceed (dfd) (Entered: 01/20/2000)

1000

BRIEF by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick in support of [999−1] motion for continuance of trial date to allow mediation to proceed (dfd) (Entered: 01/20/2000)

ENDORSED ORDER granting [900−1] motion for extension of time to file a response to defendants' motion for an order to retrain the Monitor, Response to motion reset to 8/17/99 for [893−1] motion for an order to restrain the Monitor (Signed by Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 01/20/2000)

MOTION in open court by Robert Williams, Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Advocacy Center, Office of Monitor, Gregory L. Coler, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Miller Frank Johnson, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, USA, Agency for Health, Department of Children to bring laptop computers into the United States Courthouse referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 01/21/2000)

1001 ORDER granting [0−0] motion to bring laptop computers into the United States Courthouse (Signed by Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 01/21/2000)

1002

SECOND MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick (second motion) for continuance of trial date , and (second motion) for expedited consideration (dfd) (Entered: 01/21/2000)

1003

MEMORANDUM by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick in support of [1002−1] second motion for continuance of trial date, [1002−2] second motion for expedited consideration (dfd) (Entered: 01/21/2000)

1004 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson in opposition to [999−1] motion for continuance of trial date to allow mediation to proceed (dfd) (Entered: 01/21/2000)

ENDORSED ORDER granting [997−1] motion to extend time to respond to defendants' objections to Magistrate's order awarding attorneys' fees for the period March−April, 1999 (Signed by Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 01/21/2000)

1005 RESPONSE by USA to [1002−1] second motion for continuance of trial date to allow mediation to proceed (dfd) (Entered: 01/24/2000)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 98 of 146

01/21/2000 01/21/2000
01/21/2000 01/21/2000 01/21/2000 01/21/2000
01/21/2000 01/24/2000 01/24/2000 01/24/2000 01/24/2000

1005 REQUEST by USA for the Court to defer ruling on defendants' motion for continuance of trial date to allow mediation to proceed (dfd) (Entered: 01/24/2000)

1006

ORDER granting [1005−1] motion for the Court to defer ruling on defendants' motion for continuance of trial date to allow mediation to proceed. All responses to both of defendants' motions to continue trial shall be filed with the Court no later than close of business on 1/25/00, Response to motion reset to 1/25/00 for [1002−1] second motion for continuance of trial date, reset to 1/25/00 for [999−1] motion for continuance of trial date to allow mediation to proceed . Court defers ruling until 1/25/00 on [1002−1] second motion for continuance of trial date, defers ruling until 1/25/00 on [999−1] motion for continuance of trial date to allow mediation to proceed. (Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 01/24/2000)

1007 ORDER denying [974−1] motion for leave to enlarge participation as amicus curiae (Signed by Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 01/24/2000)

1008

ORDER denying [948−1] motion to permit Dr. Mary Jeanne Groesbeck, DNSc, ARNP, CS to testify as an expert witness without retaliation, denying [948−2] motion to substitute an expert and permit rebuttal, mooting [948−3] motion for expedited consideration. (Signed by Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 01/24/2000)

1009 ORDER denying [988−1] motion for leave to amend [731−1] answer to complaint in intervention (Signed by Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 01/24/2000)

1010

ORDER denying [921−1] motion to strike [917−1] opposition response to defendants' motion to strike Monitor's report, denying [895−1] motion to strike [883−1] Monitor's report, denying [893−1] motion for an order to restrain the Monitor, denying as moot [934−1] motion to stay said review (Monitor's decision to conduct expanded review in District 6 without using agreed upon exit criteria), granting [953−1] motion to strike plaintiffs' [945−1] response to defendants' objection to Monitor's decision to conduct expanded review in District 6 as untimely filed. The Clerk is directed to return [945−1] plaintiffs' response to counsel for the plaintiffs. (Signed by Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 01/24/2000)

1011

ORDER denying [954−1] motion to compel class plaintiffs' answers to defendants' interrogatories, denying [954−2] motion for fees, denying [954−3] motion for costs granting in part, denying in part [967−1] motion to compel production of documents. See order for details. (Signed by Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 01/24/2000)

1012

MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, with memorandum in support in limine to preclude The Advocacy Center's active participation at trial (dfd) Modified on 01/25/2000 (Entered: 01/25/2000)

1013

MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick with memorandum in support in limine to preclude the class plaintiffs' active participation at trial (dfd) (Entered: 01/25/2000)

1014

MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick to extend time to respond to the class plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees referred to Mag.Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 01/25/2000)

1015 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson in partial opposition to [1002−1] second motion for continuance of trial date (dfd) (Entered: 01/25/2000)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 99 of 146

01/24/2000 01/24/2000 01/25/2000 01/25/2000 01/25/2000 01/25/2000 01/26/2000 01/26/2000
01/26/2000 01/26/2000
01/27/2000 02/01/2000 02/03/2000

1016 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson with memorandum in support to compel payment of uncontested portions of plaintiffs' fees and costs applications for January−August, 1999 referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 01/25/2000)

1017 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson with memorandum in support for attorneys' fees , and costs for the period 11/1/99 to 12/31/99 referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 01/25/2000)

1018 OPPOSITION by USA to [990−1] motion to strike reports of United States' experts not reasonably related to rebuttal, [990−2] motion to permit rebuttal, [990−3] motion for expedited consideration (dfd) (Entered: 01/26/2000)

1019 NOTICE of receipt of trial subpoena and intent to appear at trial by Office of The Monitor (dfd) (Entered: 01/26/2000)

1020 RESPONSE by USA to [1002−1] second motion for continuance of trial date, [1002−2] second motion for expedited consideration, [999−1] motion for continuance of trial date to allow mediation to proceed (dfd) (Entered: 01/26/2000)

1021 MINUTE ENTRY: Hearing on expert motions held on 1/25/00 before Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III. All counsel appeared by phone. Tape 22/38−End of tape. (dfd) Modified on 01/26/2000 (Entered: 01/26/2000)

Motion(s) no longer referred: [1002−2] motion (second motion) for expedited consideration (dfd) (Entered: 01/26/2000)

1022

ORDER granting in part [999−1] motion for continuance of trial date to allow mediation to proceed, granting in part [1002−1] second motion for continuance of trial date, granting in part [1002−2] second motion for expedited consideration, to the extent that the trial is continued to the Court's August 2000 trial calendar, reset bench trial for term commencing 8/1/00 Scheduled for Judge Susan C. Bucklew , reset dispositive motion filing (notwithstanding motions in limine) deadline for 4/1/00 . The deadline for filing of motions in limine is 5/1/00. The parties shall submit proposed finding of fact and conclusions of law to the Court no later than 7/17/00. The parties are ordered to immediately set dates with a mediator for further mediation. The parties are instructed to continue with any other ongoing efforts to settle this case. (Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 01/27/2000)

1023

AMENDED OBJECTIONS by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick to [970−1] order awarding fees and costs for the period March−April 1999 (dfd) (Entered: 01/27/2000)

1024

MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick with memorandum in support in limine to preclude the Monitor and the Assistant Monitor from testifying as expert witnesses for DOJ , and in limine to preclude admission of any report created by them as evidence at trial (dfd) (Entered: 01/27/2000)

1025 ORDER that the Magistrate Judge's ruling (doc 970 is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to the law and defendants objections are dismissed ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 01/28/2000)

1026 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson (unopposed) to extend time to and including 2/11/00 to respond to defendants motions in limine regarding the class plaintiffs' and the Monitors' participation at trial (dfd) (Entered: 02/02/2000)

1027 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick to [992−1] motion for attorneys' fees, [992−2] motion for costs for the period

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 100 of 146

02/04/2000 02/04/2000 02/04/2000 02/04/2000 02/04/2000 02/04/2000 02/04/2000 02/04/2000 02/07/2000
02/07/2000 02/07/2000 02/08/2000

9/1/99 to 10/31/99 (dfd) (Entered: 02/04/2000)

1028

OBJECTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick to [1010−1] order denying their objection to Monitor's decision to conduct expanded review in District 6 (dfd) (Entered: 02/07/2000)

1029

OBJECTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick to [1008−1] order re: Dr. Mary Jeanne Groesbeck, or alternatively, to permit substitution of Scott Canfield, PhD. (dfd) (Entered: 02/07/2000)

1030 MEMORANDUM by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick in support of [1029−1] opposition response (dfd) (Entered: 02/07/2000)

1031

OBJECTIONS by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick to [1011−1] order re: motion to compel peer review materials (dfd) (Entered: 02/07/2000)

1032 MEMORANDUM by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick in support of [1031−1] opposition response (dfd) (Entered: 02/07/2000)

1033

OBJECTIONS by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick to [1009−1] order re: motion for leave to amend answer to complaint in intervention (dfd) (Entered: 02/07/2000)

1034 MEMORANDUM by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick in support of [1033−1] opposition response (dfd) (Entered: 02/07/2000)

1029 MOTION by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Thomas Sellars to permit substitution of Scott Cnfield, PhD in place of Dr. Mary Jeanne Groesbeck as defendant's "nurse expert" (jlh) (Entered: 03/31/2000)

1035

NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL of [1025−1] order by Robert Williams, Gregory L. Coler, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, Thomas Sellars Appeal Information Sheet Sent to Appellant. Fee Status: paid Receipt # T002811 (jlg) Modified on 03/30/2000 (Entered: 02/08/2000)

1036

RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick to [1017−1] motion for attorneys' fees, [1017−2] motion costs for the period 11/1/99 to 12/31/99 (dfd) (Entered: 02/08/2000)

1036

MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick to bar use of former monitor as plaintiffs' paralegal referred to Mag.Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 02/08/2000)

Certified copies of notice of appeal, judgment/order under appeal, and docket transmitted to USCA: [1035−1] appeal ctc (jlg) (Entered: 02/08/2000)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 101 of 146

02/09/2000 02/09/2000
02/09/2000
02/09/2000 02/09/2000 02/09/2000
02/09/2000 02/10/2000
02/10/2000 02/10/2000
02/11/2000
02/11/2000 02/11/2000 02/14/2000

1037 OPPOSITION by USA to [1024−1] motion in limine to preclude the Monitor and the Assistant Monitor from testifying as expert witnesses for DOJ, [1024−2] motion in limine to preclude admission of any report created by them as evidence at trial (dfd) (Entered: 02/10/2000)

1038

SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick to [1010−1] order denying their objection to Monitor's decision to conduct expanded review in District 6 in view of new evidence (dfd) (Entered: 02/10/2000)

1039

RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Florida Deparment of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick to class plaintiffs' [1016−1] motion to compel payment of uncontested portions of plaintiffs' fees and costs applications for January−August, 1999 (dfd) (Entered: 02/10/2000)

1040 REQUEST by USA to extend time to schedule mediation dates (dfd) (Entered: 02/10/2000)

1041 OPPOSITION by USA to [1013−1] motion in limine to preclude the class plaintiffs' active participation at trial (dfd) (Entered: 02/10/2000)

1042

ORDER: Since the conduct of the Pretrial Conference, the Court has granted the parties a continuance to pursue mediation. The Court will not, at present, issue a Pretrial Order. Instead, the Court will notice, by separate order, another final Pretrial Conference at an appropriate time in advance of the scheduled trial. (Signed by Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 02/10/2000)

1043 NOTICE of Hearing: set pretrial conference for 9:30 7/7/00 Scheduled for Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ctc (dfd) (Entered: 02/10/2000)

1044

RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick to [1019−1] notice of receipt of trial subpoena and intent to appear at trial (dfd) (Entered: 02/11/2000)

1045 NOTICE of scheduled mediation dates by USA (dfd) (Entered: 02/11/2000)

ENDORSED ORDER granting [1026−1] motion to extend time to and including 2/11/00 to respond to defendants motions in limine regarding the class plaintiffs' and the Monitors' participation at trial, Response to motion reset to 2/11/00 for [1024−1] motion in limine to preclude the Monitor and the Assistant Monitor from testifying as expert witnesses for DOJ, for [1024−2] motion in limine to preclude admission of any report created by them as evidence at trial, for [1013−1] motion in limine to preclude the class plaintiffs' active participation at trial (Signed by Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 02/11/2000)

1046

RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson in opposition to [1024−1] motion in limine to preclude the Monitor and the Assistant Monitor from testifying as expert witnesses for DOJ, [1024−2] motion in limine to preclude admission of any report created by them as evidence at trial (dfd) (Entered: 02/14/2000)

1047 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson in opposition to [1013−1] motion in limine to preclude the class plaintiffs' active participation at trial (dfd) (Entered: 02/14/2000)

ENDORSED ORDER denying as moot [1014−1] motion to extend time to respond to the class plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees (Signed by Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 02/14/2000)

1048 Transcript requested [1035−1] appeal. Appeal Information Sheet filed. No transcript required for purpose of appeal. (crs) (Entered: 02/16/2000)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 102 of 146

02/14/2000 02/15/2000 02/17/2000 02/22/2000 02/22/2000
02/22/2000
02/22/2000 02/22/2000
02/23/2000 02/23/2000 02/25/2000
02/25/2000 02/25/2000
02/25/2000 02/28/2000
02/28/2000
02/28/2000

Deadline updated; Certificate of readiness due 2/28/00 for [1035−1] appeal (crs) (Entered: 02/17/2000)

1049 RESPONSE by Office of Monitor to [1038−1] opposition response, [1028−1] opposition response (dfd) (Entered: 02/17/2000)

NOTICE assigning 11th Circuit case number on 2/10/00 re: [1035−1] appeal; USCA NUMBER: 00−10695−B (mrh) (Entered: 02/18/2000)

1050 MOTION by USA (unopposed) for extension of time to and including 3/17/00, to respond to defendants' objections to Magistrate's 1/21/00 order re: motion for leave to amend answer to complaint in intervention (dfd) (Entered: 02/23/2000)

1051 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson in opposition to [1029−1] objections to Magistrate's 1/21/00 order re: Dr. Mary Jeanne Groesbeck, or, alternatively, to permit substitution of Scott Canfield, Ph.D. (dfd) (Entered: 02/23/2000)

1052 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to [1033−1] objections to Magistrate's 1/21/00 order re: motion for leave to amend answer to complaint in intervention (dfd) (Entered: 02/23/2000)

1053 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to [1031−1] objections to Magistrate's 1/21/00 order re: motion to compel peer review materials (dfd) (Entered: 02/23/2000)

1054 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to [1038−1] objection to order denying their objection to Monitor's decision to conduct expanded review in District 6 (dfd) (Entered: 02/23/2000)

1055 RESPONSE by USA to [1029−1] objections to Magistrate Judge's order regarding Dr. Mary Jeanne Groesbeck and Scott Canfield, Ph.D. (dfd) (Entered: 02/24/2000)

1056 RESPONSE by USA to [1031−1] objections to Magistrate's order regarding motion to compel peer review materials (dfd) (Entered: 02/24/2000)

1057 ORDER granting [1050−1] motion for extension of time to and including 3/17/00, to respond to defendants' objections to Magistrate's 1/21/00 order re: motion for leave to amend answer to complaint in intervention (Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 02/28/2000)

1058 OPPOSITION by USA to [1038−1] supplemental objection and [1028−1] objection to order denying their objeciton to Monitor's decision to conduct expanded review in District 6 (dfd) Modified on 02/28/2000 (Entered: 02/28/2000)

1059 AMENDED RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to [1033−1] objections to Magistrate's 1/21/00 order re: motion for leave to amend answer to complaint in intervention (dfd) (Entered: 02/28/2000)

1060 RESPONSE by USA to defendants' proposed action to respond to United States' expert reports (dfd) (Entered: 02/28/2000)

1061

MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson with memorandum in support for leave to file reply to defendants' response to class plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees for the period September−October, 1999 , or, alternatively, for evidentiary hearing ; proposed reply attached. (dfd) Modified on 02/29/2000 (Entered: 02/29/2000)

1062

MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson with memorandum in support for leave to file reply to defendants' response to class plaintiffs' motion for attorneys fees for the period November−December 1999 , or, alternatively, for evidentiary hearing (eec) (Entered: 03/01/2000)

1063 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson in opposition to [1036−1] motion to bar use of former

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 103 of 146

02/28/2000 02/28/2000 03/01/2000 03/02/2000 03/02/2000 03/07/2000 03/13/2000
03/17/2000 03/17/2000 03/28/2000
03/28/2000
03/30/2000 03/30/2000

monitor as plaintiffs' paralegal. (eec) (Entered: 03/01/2000)

1064 NOTICE of filing supplemental exhibit by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson, re: plaintiffs' application for fees and costs for the period 9/1/99 to 10/31/99. (eec) (Entered: 03/01/2000)

1065 NOTICE of filing supplemental exhibit by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson, re: plaintiffs' application for fees and costs for the period 11/1/99 to 12/31/99. (eec) (Entered: 03/01/2000)

Letters of designation of the record on appeal sent to counsel of record. Clerk C. Slemmer advised the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (via telephone) and talked to Clerk D. Briggs. (USCA number 00−10695−B) (crs) (Entered: 03/01/2000)

1066 RESPONSE by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Thomas Sellars in opposition to [1061−1] motion for leave to file reply to defendants' response to class plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees for the period September−October, 1999 (jlh) (Entered: 03/03/2000)

1067 MOTION by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Thomas Sellars to strike supplemental exhibits to plaintiffs' motion for attorneys fees for the periods September−October and November−December 1999 (jlh) (Entered: 03/03/2000)

1068 NOTICE of withdrawal of counsel, Laurie J. Weinstein, by USA. The United States will continue to be represented by Christy E. Lopez, Verlin H. Deerinwater, and Joseph R. Zogby. (dfd) (Entered: 03/09/2000)

1069

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, Thomas Sellars to [1017−1] motion for attorneys' fees, [1017−2] motion for costs for the period 11/1/99 to 12/31/99 (dfd) (Entered: 03/14/2000)

1070 RESPONSE by USA to [1033−1] objections to Magistrate's 1/21/00 order re: motion for leave to amend answer to complaint in intervention (dfd) (Entered: 03/20/2000)

1071 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS on defendant's motion for leave to amend answer to complaint in intervention for date of 1/12/00 before Judge Thomas B. McCoun III. Transcript filed separately. (dfd) (Entered: 03/20/2000)

1072

MOTION by Robert Williams, Flordia Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick for leave to file a reply to United States response to defendants' objections to Magistrate's order regarding motion to compel peer review materials ; unsigned proposed reply attached as exhibit A. (dfd) Modified on 03/29/2000 (Entered: 03/29/2000)

1073

MEMORANDUM by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick in support of [1072−1] motion for leave to file a reply to United States response to defendants' objections to Magistrate's order regarding motion to compel peer review materials (dfd) (Entered: 03/29/2000)

1074

MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick to compel production of documents referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 03/30/2000)

1075 MEMORANDUM by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick in support of [1074−1] motion to compel production of documents (dfd)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 104 of 146

03/31/2000 03/31/2000 03/31/2000 03/31/2000 03/31/2000 03/31/2000 03/31/2000 03/31/2000 04/03/2000
04/03/2000
04/03/2000 04/03/2000

(Entered: 03/30/2000)

1076 ORDER that objections to 1/21/00 order are dismissed; granting [1029−1] motion to permit substitution of Scott Cnfield, PhD in place of Dr. Mary Jeanne Groesbeck as defendant's "nurse expert" ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 03/31/2000)

1077

ORDER that the defendants objections to 1/21/00 order re: motion for leave to amend answer to complaint in intervention are granted: reset amended answer including their fundamental alteration affirmative defense due for 4/21/00 for Thomas Sellars, for G. Pierce Wood Memor, for Fl Dept Of Health/re, for Robert Williams ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 03/31/2000)

1078 MOTION by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Thomas Sellars for judgment on pleadings (jlh) (Entered: 03/31/2000)

1079 MEMORANDUM by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Thomas Sellars in support of [1078−1] motion for judgment on pleadings (jlh) (Entered: 03/31/2000)

1080 SECOND MOTION by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Thomas Sellars (second) regarding the substitution of Scot K. Canfield for Dr. Mary Jeanne Groesbeck (jlh) (Entered: 03/31/2000)

1081 MEMORANDUM by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Thomas Sellars in support of [1080−1] motion (second) regarding the substitution of Scot K. Canfield for Dr. Mary Jeanne Groesbeck (jlh) (Entered: 03/31/2000)

1081 REQUEST for oral argument by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Thomas Sellars re: [1080−1] motion (second) regarding the substitution of Scot K. Canfield for Dr. Mary Jeanne Groesbeck (jlh) (Entered: 03/31/2000)

1082 ORDER granting in part, denying in part [920−1] motion for attorneys' fees, granting in part, denying in part [920−2] motion costs for the period 5/1/99 to 6/30/99. See order for details. ( Signed by Mag.Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (vld) (Entered: 03/31/2000)

1083

MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick to depose Monitor , to depose Monitor's assistant , to permit introduction of expert testimony in opposition to Monitor , and to allow in−house experts to render opinions in opposition to the Monitor referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 04/03/2000)

1084

MEMORANDUM by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick in support of [1083−1] motion to depose Monitor, [1083−2] motion to depose Monitor's assistant, [1083−3] motion to permit introduction of expert testimony in opposition to Monitor, [1083−4] motion to allow in−house experts to render opinions in opposition to the Monitor (dfd) (Entered: 04/03/2000)

1085

MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick in limine to exclude testimony of intervenor's expert witnesses Nancy K. Ray and Natalie Russo (dfd) (Entered: 04/03/2000)

1086

MEMORANDUM by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick in support of [1085−1] motion in limine to exclude testimony of intervenor's expert witnesses Nancy K. Ray and Natalie Russo (dfd) (Entered: 04/03/2000)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 105 of 146

04/03/2000 04/05/2000 04/10/2000 04/13/2000 04/13/2000 04/13/2000
04/14/2000
04/14/2000 04/14/2000 04/17/2000 04/18/2000 04/18/2000 04/18/2000
04/18/2000 04/18/2000 04/19/2000

1087 ORDER denying as moot [1080−1] second motion regarding the substitution of Scot K. Canfield for Dr. Mary Jeanne Groesbeck, denying as moot [1081−1] request for oral argument (Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 04/03/2000)

1088 NOTICE to the court of refusal to pay office of the monitors' fees by Dorothy J. Rowe, Linda L. Glenn, Office of Monitor. (eec) (Entered: 04/05/2000)

1089 APPLICATION with memorandum in support by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson for attorney fees for the period 1/1/00 to 2/29/00 , and for costs for the period 1/1/00 to 2/29/00 referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 04/11/2000)

MOTION no longer referred: [1072−1] motion for leave to file a reply to United States response to defendants' objections to Magistrate's order regarding motion to compel peer review materials per instructions from chambers. (dfd) (Entered: 04/13/2000)

1090 OPPOSITION by USA to [1072−1] motion for leave to file a reply to United States response to defendants' objections to Magistrate's order regarding motion to compel peer review materials (dfd) (Entered: 04/14/2000)

1091

MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick for leave to file long memorandum ; proposed memorandum attached. (dfd) (Entered: 04/14/2000)

1092

ORDER dismissing [1031−1] objections to Magistrate's 1/21/00 order regarding motion to compel peer review materials; denying as moot [1072−1] motion for leave to file a reply to United States response to defendants' objections to Magistrate's order regarding motion to compel peer review materials (Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 04/17/2000)

1093 MOTION by USA for reconsideration of [1076−1] order regarding defendants' substitution of expert witness and response to defendants' second motion regarding such substitution (dfd) (Entered: 04/17/2000)

1094 MEMORANDUM by USA in support of [1093−1] motion for reconsideration of [1076−1] order regarding defendants' substitution of expert witness and response to defendants' second motion regarding such substitution (dfd) (Entered: 04/17/2000)

1096 OPPOSITION by USA to [1074−1] motion to compel production of documents (dfd) (Entered: 04/18/2000)

1095 CERTIFICATE of readiness with certified copies of indexed district court docket sheet sent to USCA re: [927−1] appeal, [928−1] appeal, [1035−1] appeal (ROA consists of: Volume pleadings: 2;) USCA# 99−13458−B; USCA# 00−10695−B (crs) (Entered: 04/18/2000)

1097 NOTICE OF HEARING: setting status conference on pending motions for 9:30 5/2/00 scheduled for Mag.Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ( Signed by Mag.Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (src) (Entered: 04/19/2000)

1098

MEMORANDUM by Office of Monitor in opposition to [1083−1] motion to depose Monitor, [1083−2] motion to depose Monitor's assistant, [1083−3] motion to permit introduction of expert testimony in opposition to Monitor, [1083−4] motion to allow in−house experts to render opinions in opposition to the Monitor (src) (Entered: 04/19/2000)

1099 AMENDED ANSWER to complaint in intervention by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Thomas Sellars : amends [731−1] intervenor answer (src) (Entered: 04/19/2000)

1100 RESPONSE by USA in opposition to [1078−1] motion for judgment on pleadings (src) (Entered: 04/19/2000)

RECORD ON APPEAL sent to USCA re: [927−1] appeal, [928−1] appeal, [1035−1] appeal per e−mail request of 3/24/00. Transmittal includes: (ROA

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 106 of 146

04/19/2000 04/19/2000
04/20/2000 04/20/2000 04/20/2000
04/21/2000
04/21/2000
04/24/2000 04/24/2000 04/24/2000
04/26/2000 05/01/2000 05/01/2000 05/01/2000

consists of: Volume pleadings: 2; ) USCA# 99−13458−B; 00−10695−B (crs) Modified on 04/19/2000 (Entered: 04/19/2000)

1101 OPPOSITION by USA to [1085−1] motion in limine to exclude testimony of intervenor's expert witnesses Nancy K. Ray and Natalie Russo (dfd) (Entered: 04/20/2000)

1102

OPPOSITION by USA to [1083−1] motion to depose Monitor, [1083−2] motion to depose Monitor's assistant, [1083−3] motion to permit introduction of expert testimony in opposition to Monitor, [1083−4] motion to allow in−house experts to render opinions in opposition to the Monitor (dfd) Modified on 04/20/2000 (Entered: 04/20/2000)

1103 ORDER denying [1078−1] motion for judgment on pleadings (Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 04/20/2000)

1104 ORDER granting [1091−1] motion for leave to file long memorandum (Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 04/20/2000)

1105

RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick to [1089−1] motion for attorney fees for the period 1/1/00 to 2/29/00, [1089−2] motion for costs for the period 1/1/00 to 2/29/00 and MOTION to stay consideration of attorneys' fee matters referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 04/20/2000)

1106

OBJECTIONS by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick to Magistrate Judge's [1082−1] order awarding fees and costs for the period May−June 1999 (dfd) (Entered: 04/24/2000)

1107

RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick to Monitor's [1088−1] notice to the Court concerning Monitor's fees (dfd) (Entered: 04/24/2000)

1108 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson in opposition to [1078−1] motion for judgment on pleadings (dfd) (Entered: 04/25/2000)

1109 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson in opposition to [1085−1] motion in limine to exclude testimony of intervenor's expert witnesses Nancy K. Ray and Natalie Russo (dfd) (Entered: 04/25/2000)

1110

RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson in opposition to [1083−1] motion to depose Monitor, [1083−2] motion to depose Monitor's assistant, [1083−3] motion to permit introduction of expert testimony in opposition to Monitor, [1083−4] motion to allow in−house experts to render opinions in opposition to the Monitor (dfd) (Entered: 04/25/2000)

ACKNOWLEDGMENT by USCA of receiving certificate of readiness on 4/21/00 re: [928−1] and [927−1] appeals USCA # 99−13458−B and 00−10695−B (cdm) (Entered: 04/26/2000)

1111 MOTION by USA in limine to exclude evidence supporting defendants' fifth and seventh affirmative defenses at trial (dfd) (Entered: 05/02/2000)

1112 MEMORANDUM by USA in support of [1111−1] motion in limine to exclude evidence supporting defendants' fifth and seventh affirmative defenses at trial (dfd) (Entered: 05/02/2000)

1113 MEMORANDUM by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver,

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 107 of 146

05/01/2000 05/01/2000 05/01/2000 05/01/2000 05/01/2000
05/01/2000
05/01/2000
05/01/2000 05/01/2000 05/02/2000
05/02/2000
05/02/2000 05/03/2000

Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick in opposition to [1093−1] motion for reconsideration of [1076−1] order regarding defendants' substitution of expert witness and response to defendants' second motion regarding such substitution (dfd) (Entered: 05/02/2000)

1114 MOTION by USA in limine to limit evidence at trial to to facts that existed on or before 9/30/99 (dfd) (Entered: 05/02/2000)

1115 MEMORANDUM by USA in support of [1114−1] motion in limine to limit evidence at trial to to facts that existed on or before 9/30/99 (dfd) (Entered: 05/02/2000)

1116 MOTION by USA in limine to exclude evidence supporting defendants' second, twelfth and thirteenth affirmative defenses at trial (dfd) (Entered: 05/02/2000)

1117 MEMORANDUM by USA in support of [1116−1] motion in limine to exclude evidence supporting defendants' second, twelfth and thirteenth affirmative defenses at trial (dfd) (Entered: 05/02/2000)

1118

MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick in limine to exclude testimony of intervenor's expert witness Martha C. Hodge referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 05/02/2000)

1119

MEMORANDUM by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick in support of [1118−1] motion in limine to exclude testimony of intervenor's expert witness Martha C. Hodge (dfd) (Entered: 05/02/2000)

1120

UNOPPOSED MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick (unopposed) to extend time to file defendants' motion in limine to exclude testimony of intervenor's expert witness Pamela S. Hyde referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 05/03/2000)

1121 MOTION by USA in limine to exclude defendants' expert witnesses David Schretlen and Floyd Propps , or in the alternative in limine to limit their testimony to their testimony to their areas of expertise referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 05/03/2000)

1122 MEMORANDUM by USA in support of [1121−1] motion in limine to exclude defendants' expert witnesses David Schretlen and Floyd Propps, [1121−2] motion in limine to limit their testimony to their testimony to their areas of expertise (dfd) (Entered: 05/03/2000)

1123

MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick in limine to exclude testimony of intervenor's expert witness Pamela S. Hyde referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 05/03/2000)

1124

MEMORANDUM by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick in support of [1123−1] motion in limine to exclude testimony of intervenor's expert witness Pamela S. Hyde (dfd) (Entered: 05/03/2000)

ENDORSED ORDER granting [1120−1] unopposed motion to extend time to 5/2/00 to file defendants' motion in limine to exclude testimony of intervenor's expert witness Pamela S. Hyde (Signed by Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 05/03/2000)

1125 STATUS CONFERENCE held on 5/2/00 before Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III. Court Reporter: Dennis Miracle. Tape: 77/3270−79/490 (dfd) (Entered: 05/05/2000)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 108 of 146

05/04/2000 05/04/2000 05/04/2000 05/04/2000 05/08/2000 05/08/2000 05/08/2000 05/08/2000 05/08/2000 05/08/2000
05/08/2000
05/09/2000

1126

PROPOSED ACTION to respond to United States' expert reports not reasonably related to rebuttal as per the Court's request of 1/25/00 by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick (dfd) (Entered: 05/05/2000)

1127 TRANSCRIPT of status conference on outstanding motions held on 5/2/00 before Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun, III. Transcript filed separately. (dfd) (Entered: 05/05/2000)

ENDORSED ORDER denying as moot [1012−1] motion in limine to preclude The Advocacy Center's active participation at trial. See [1007−1] order. (Signed by Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III) ctc (dfd) Modified on 05/05/2000 (Entered: 05/05/2000)

ENDORSED ORDER denying [977−1] motion to stay consideration of class plaintiffs' motions for attorneys' fees (Signed by Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 05/05/2000)

1128 ORDER denying [1093−1] motion for reconsideration of [1076−1] order regarding defendants' substitution of expert witness and response to defendants' second motion regarding such substitution (Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 05/08/2000)

1129

OBJECTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick to Monitor's decision to conduct expanded reviews in Districts 5 and 14 (dfd) (Entered: 05/09/2000)

1129

RENEWED MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick with memorandum in support (renewed motion) to depose the Monitor , and (renewed motion) to depose the Assistant Monitor referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 05/09/2000)

1130 NOTICE of partial payment of fees pursuant to plaintiffs' motion to compel payment of uncontested portions of plaintiffs' fees and costs application for January−August, 19999 by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson (dfd) (Entered: 05/09/2000)

1131 NOTICE of substitution of Stephen Hanlon for Robert Shapiro as co−counsel for class plaintiffs by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson (dfd) (Entered: 05/09/2000)

1132

ORDER denying [1074−1] motion to compel production of documents except to the extent that the Government has within its possession, custody or control, statements of its experts (as identified by the motion) given in prior litigation by the experts or otherwise published in the public record, the Government shall comply with the defendants' request and produce such reports within thirty (30) days of the date of this order. (Signed by Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 05/09/2000)

1133

ORDER denying [946−1] motion to strike the second reports of Dr. Jeffrey Geller and Pamela S. Hyde, denying [946−2] motion to permit rebuttal, denying [946−3] motion for expedited consideration, denying [990−1] motion to strike reports of United States' experts not reasonably related to rebuttal, denying [990−2] motion to permit rebuttal, denying [990−3] motion for expedited consideration, denying [960−1] emergency motion for protective order prohibiting defendants' expert Dr. Jeffrey S. Janofsky from touring G. Pierce Wood, denying [960−2] emergency motion to exclude testimony by Dr. Janofsky, denying [1126−1] proposed plan regarding Dr. Geller and Dr. Janofsky. (Signed by Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 05/09/2000)

1134 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 109 of 146

05/09/2000 05/11/2000 05/12/2000 05/12/2000
05/12/2000
05/15/2000 05/15/2000 05/16/2000 05/17/2000 05/17/2000 05/22/2000

Gray, Pam Paulick (unopposed) to extend time for responding to motions in limine (dfd) (Entered: 05/10/2000)

1135

MEMORANDUM by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick in support of [1134−1] unopposed motion to extend time for responding to motions in limine (dfd) (Entered: 05/10/2000)

1136 MEDIATION REPORT of USA and Plaintiffs: Mediation conference held 3/7−9/00, and continued to May 8; Hearing outcome, Impasse. May conference was canceled and parties are actively preparing for trial. (map) (Entered: 05/12/2000)

1137

MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson for leave to file out of time response in opposition to defendants' objections to Magistrate Judge's order awarding fees for the period May−June, 1999 ; proposed response attached. (dfd) Modified on 05/15/2000 (Entered: 05/15/2000)

1138

ORDER granting [1134−1] unopposed motion to extend time for responding to motions in limine, response to motion set to 5/26/00 for [1116−1] motion in limine to exclude evidence supporting defendants' second, twelfth and thirteenth affirmative defenses at trial by intervenor−plaint, for [1114−1] motion in limine to limit evidence at trial to to facts that existed on or before 9/30/99 by intervenor−plaint, for [1111−1] motion in limine to exclude evidence supporting defendants' fifth and seventh affirmative defenses at trial by intervenor−plaint, for [1121−1] motion in limine to exclude defendants' expert witnesses David Schretlen and Floyd Propps by intervenor−plaint, and for [1121−2] motion in limine to limit their testimony to their testimony to their areas of expertise by intervenor−plaint (Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 05/15/2000)

1139

ORDER denying [1013−1] motion in limine to preclude the class plaintiffs' active participation at trial, denying [1024−1] motion in limine to preclude the Monitor and the Assistant Monitor from testifying as expert witnesses for DOJ, denying [1024−2] motion in limine to preclude admission of any report created by them as evidence at trial, denying [1083−1] motion to depose Monitor, denying [1083−2] motion to depose Monitor's assistant, denying [1083−3] motion to permit introduction of expert testimony in opposition to Monitor, denying [1083−4] motion to allow in−house experts to render opinions in opposition to the Monitor (Signed by Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 05/15/2000)

1140 ORDER dismissing [1106−1] objection to order awarding fees and costs (Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew) ctc (rm) (Entered: 05/16/2000)

1141 NOTICE of interlocutory appeal of [1092−1] order by Gregory L. Coler, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Dick Bradley, Thomas Sellars Filing fee $ 105.00 Receipt# T004333. Transcript information form due on 5/30/00. (mrh) (Entered: 06/28/2000)

1142 NOTICE OF HEARING: reset pretrial conference for 9:30 7/20/00 scheduled for Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (Signed by Deputy Clerk) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 05/17/2000)

ENDORSED ORDER denying as moot [1137−1] motion for leave to file out of time response in opposition to defendants' objections to Magistrate Judge's order awarding fees for the period May−June, 1999 (Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 05/19/2000)

TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of certified copies of notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable, re: [1141−1] appeal. Transcript information form sent. (mrh) (Entered: 06/28/2000)

1143 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson in opposition to [1129−1] renewed motion to depose the Monitor, [1129−2] renewed motion to depose the Assistant Monitor, [1129−1]

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 110 of 146

05/23/2000 05/25/2000 05/25/2000 05/25/2000 05/25/2000 05/25/2000 05/26/2000 05/26/2000
05/26/2000
05/26/2000
05/26/2000 05/30/2000 05/30/2000

objection (dfd) (Entered: 05/23/2000)

1144 RESPONSE by Office of Monitor to [1129−1] renewed motion to depose the Monitor, [1129−2] renewed motion to depose the Assistant Monitor, [1129−1] objection to Monitor's decision to conduct expanded reviews in District Five and Fourteen (dfd) (Entered: 05/23/2000)

1145 OPPOSITION by USA to [1118−1] motion in limine to exclude testimony of intervenor's expert witness Martha C. Hodge (dfd) (Entered: 05/26/2000)

1146

OBJECTIONS by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, Thomas Sellars to [1133−1] order regarding the second reports of Dr. Jeffrey Geller and Pamela S. Hyde (dfd) (Entered: 05/26/2000)

1146 REQUEST by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, Thomas Sellars to permit rebuttal (dfd) (Entered: 05/26/2000)

1147

MEMORANDUM by Robert Williams, Florida of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick, Thomas Sellars in support of [1146−1] request to permit rebuttal, [1146−1] objection (dfd) (Entered: 05/26/2000)

NOTICE assigning 11th Circuit case number re: [1141−1] appeal. USCA case #: 00−12596−BB (mrh) (Entered: 06/28/2000)

1148

MEMORANDUM by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick in opposition to [1114−1] motion in limine to limit evidence at trial to to facts that existed on or before 9/30/99 (dfd) (Entered: 05/30/2000)

1149

MEMORANDUM by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick in opposition to [1111−1] motion in limine to exclude evidence supporting defendants' fifth and seventh affirmative defenses at trial (dfd) (Entered: 05/30/2000)

1150

MEMORANDUM by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick in opposition to [1116−1] motion in limine to exclude evidence supporting defendants' second, twelfth and thirteenth affirmative defenses at trial (dfd) (Entered: 05/30/2000)

1151

MEMORANDUM by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick in opposition to [1121−1] motion in limine to exclude defendants' expert witnesses David Schretlen and Floyd Propps, [1121−2] motion in limine to limit their testimony to their testimony to their areas of expertise (dfd) (Entered: 05/30/2000)

1152 OPPOSITION by USA to [1123−1] motion in limine to exclude testimony of intervenor's expert witness Pamela S. Hyde (dfd) (Entered: 05/30/2000)

1153 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson in opposition to [1118−1] motion in limine to exclude testimony of intervenor's expert witness Martha C. Hodge (dfd) (Entered: 05/31/2000)

1154 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson in opposition to [1123−1] motion in limine to exclude

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 111 of 146

05/30/2000 05/30/2000
06/01/2000 06/02/2000 06/05/2000 06/07/2000
06/08/2000 06/12/2000 06/12/2000 06/12/2000 06/12/2000
06/12/2000 06/13/2000 06/14/2000

testimony of intervenor's expert witness Pamela S. Hyde (dfd) (Entered: 05/31/2000)

1155 OBJECTIONS by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick to Magistrate's [1139−1] order dated 5/12/00 (dfd) (Entered: 05/31/2000)

1156

MEMORANDUM by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick in support of [1155−1] objections to Magistrate's order dated 5/12/00 (dfd) (Entered: 05/31/2000)

1157 NOTICE of interlocutory appeal of [1140−1] order, [1082−1] order by Robert Williams, Gregory L. Coler, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Dick Bradley, Thomas Sellars. Filing fee $ 105.00 Receipt# T004564. Transcript information form due on 6/15/00. (mrh) (Entered: 06/28/2000)

TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of certified copies of notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable, re: [1157−1] appeal. Transcript information form sent. (mrh) (Entered: 06/28/2000)

1158 APPLICATION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson for attorneys' fees , and for costs for the period 3/1/00 to 4/30/00 referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 06/06/2000)

1159

MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick with memorandum in support for protective order referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (bls) (Entered: 06/07/2000)

1160 NOTICE OF HEARING: set telephone status conference for 10:30 6/8/00 scheduled for Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III , Motion hearing set for 10:30 6/8/00 for [1159−1] motion for protective order Scheduled for Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (Signed by Law Clerk) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 06/09/2000)

1161 NOTICE of attorney appearance and association of counsel for Office of the Monitor by Michael Francis Flynn (dfd) (Entered: 06/13/2000)

1162 RESPONSE by USA to [1146−1] objections to Magistrate's 5/8/00 order regarding the second reports of Dr. Jeffrey Geller and Pamela S. Hyde, or alternatively to permit rebuttal (dfd) (Entered: 06/13/2000)

1163 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson in opposition to [1159−1] motion for protective order (dfd) (Entered: 06/13/2000)

1164

RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars, State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, Ed Feaver, Robert Constantine, Frances Gibbons, Lynn Richard, Don Dixon, Sue Gray, Pam Paulick to [1158−1] motion for attorneys' fees, [1158−2] motion for costs for the period 3/1/00 to 4/30/00 and MOTION to stay consideration of fee matters until the conclusion of the Department of Justice litigation referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 06/13/2000)

1165 TRANSCRIPT INFORMATION FORM filed re: [1157−1] appeal; transcript not requested; Certificate of readiness due 6/26/00. USCA # 00−12916−B (mrh) (Entered: 06/28/2000)

NOTICE assigning 11th Circuit case number re: [1157−1] appeal. USCA case #: 00−12916−B (mrh) (Entered: 06/28/2000)

1166 ORDER denying without prejudice [1111−1] motion in limine to exclude evidence supporting defendants' fifth and seventh affirmative defenses at trial; denying without prejudice [1114−1] motion in limine to limit evidence at trial to to facts

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 112 of 146

06/14/2000 06/15/2000 06/15/2000
06/16/2000 06/21/2000 06/21/2000 06/23/2000
06/26/2000 06/28/2000 07/06/2000 07/13/2000 07/17/2000 07/17/2000 07/17/2000 07/19/2000 07/19/2000 07/20/2000

that existed on or before 9/30/99; denying without prejudice [1116−1] motion in limine to exclude evidence supporting defendants' second, twelfth and thirteenth affirmative defenses at trial. See order for order. ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (eec) (Entered: 06/15/2000)

1167 ORDER granting [1159−1] motion for protective order. See order for details. ( Signed by Mag.Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (eec) (Entered: 06/15/2000)

1168 TRANSCRIPT of telephone conference held on 6/9/00 before Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III. Transcript filed separately. (dfd) (Entered: 06/19/2000)

1169 ORDER dismissing [1146−1] objections to Magistrate's 5/8/00 order regarding the second reports of Dr. Jeffrey Gellar and Pamela S. Hyde; denying [1146−1] alternative motion to permit rebuttal (Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 06/19/2000)

1170 RESPONSE by USA in opposition to [1155−1] objection to magistrate's order dated 5/12/00 (src) (Entered: 06/19/2000)

1171 MOTION by Office of the Monitor for approval of proposed budget for 7/1/00 through 6/30/01 referred to Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (dfd) (Entered: 06/22/2000)

1172 ORDER dismissing defendants' [1155−1] objections to Magistrate's order dated 5/12/00 (Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 06/22/2000)

1173

ORDER: The parties are directed to comply with all final pretrial procedures required by Local Rule 3.06 and to supplement the original pretrial statement as appropriate. The parties are further ordered to confer and identify any witnesses intended to be called at the 7/20/00 hearing on motions in limine with a brief disclosure of the witnesses' testimony no later than 7/13/00. (Signed by Mag. Judge Thomas B. McCoun III) ctc (dfd) (Entered: 06/26/2000)

1174 NOTICE of attorney appearance for USA by Aileen M. Bell (dfd) (Entered: 06/27/2000)

1175 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Thomas Sellars in opposition to [1171−1] Monitor's motion for approval of proposed budget for 7/1/00 through 6/30/01 (crb) (Entered: 06/29/2000)

1176 ORDER setting the guidelines for drafting findings of fact and conclusions of law; see order for details. ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (eec) (Entered: 07/07/2000)

1177 SUPPLEMENT by USA to [1101−1] opposition response to motion in limine to exclude testimony of expert witnesses Nancy K. Ray and Natalie Russo. (cdm) (Entered: 07/14/2000)

1178 TRIAL CALENDAR for trial term commencing 8/7/00 scheduled for Judge Susan C. Bucklew Jury trial deadline 9:00 8/7/00 case number 7. ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (cdm) (Entered: 07/18/2000)

PROPOSED findings of fact and conclusions of law filed by Thomas B. York, Esquire, attorney for defendants. (cdm) (Entered: 07/18/2000)

1179 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW filed by the United States (jlh) (Entered: 07/19/2000)

1180 MOTION by USA for leave to amend and substitute title page re: 1179 findings of fact order referred to Judge Susan C. Bucklew; attachment (crb) (Entered: 07/20/2000)

1181 TELEPHONE STATUS CONFERENCE held on 07/17/00 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew Court Reporter: Paul Spangler (crb) (Entered: 07/20/2000)

1182 PRETRIAL CONFERENCE held on 7/20/00 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew Court Reporter: Candy Moors (Montana) (jlh) (Entered: 07/21/2000)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 113 of 146

07/20/2000
07/20/2000 07/20/2000 07/21/2000 07/21/2000
07/24/2000 07/24/2000 07/26/2000 07/28/2000
07/31/2000 07/31/2000 08/01/2000 08/01/2000 08/01/2000

1182

MOTION HEARING held on 7/20/00 re: [1123−1] motion in limine to exclude testimony of intervenor's expert witness Pamela S. Hyde, [1118−1] motion in limine to exclude testimony of intervenor's expert witness Martha C. Hodge, [1116−1] motion in limine to exclude evidence supporting defendants' second, twelfth and thirteenth affirmative defenses at trial, [1114−1] motion in limine to limit evidence at trial to to facts that existed on or before 9/30/99, [1111−1] motion in limine to exclude evidence supporting defendants' fifth and seventh affirmative defenses at trial, [1121−1] motion in limine to exclude defendants' expert witnesses David Schretlen and Floyd Propps, [1121−2] motion in limine to limit their testimony to their testimony to their areas of expertise before Judge Susan C. Bucklew Court Reporter: Candy Moors (Montana) (jlh) (Entered: 07/21/2000)

1183 REVISED JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT. (src) (Entered: 07/21/2000)

1184 ORDER from USCA dismissing [1141−1] appeal pursuant to appellant's motion for voluntary dismissal. Issued as the mandate: 7/17/00 EOD: 7/17/00. USCA# 00−12596−BB (crs) (Entered: 07/21/2000)

1185 PRETRIAL ORDER filed. ( Signed by Mag.Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (wlb) (Entered: 07/24/2000)

1186

ORDER denying [1118−1] motion in limine to exclude testimony of intervenor's expert witness Martha C. Hodge denying [1085−1] motion in limine to exclude testimony of intervenor's expert witnesses Nancy K. Ray and Natalie Russo denying [1121−1] motion in limine to exclude defendants' expert witnesses David Schretlen and Floyd Propps, denying [1121−2] motion in limine to limit their testimony to their testimony to their areas of expertise. See order for more details. ( Signed by Mag.Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (wlb) (Entered: 07/24/2000)

ENDORSED ORDER granting [1180−1] motion for leave to amend and substitute title page re: 1179 findings of fact order. ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (smb) (Entered: 07/25/2000)

1187 MOTION (REQUEST) by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson for judicial notice (smb) (Entered: 07/25/2000)

1188 TRANSCRIPT of telephonic status conference held on 7/17/00 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew re: Court Reporter: Paul Spangler; Transcript filed separately. (crs) (Entered: 07/27/2000)

1189

ORDER denying [1123−1] motion in limine to exclude testimony of intervenor's expert witness Pamela S. Hyde; granting in part, denying in part [1121−1] motion in limine to exclude defendants' expert witnesses David Schretlen and Floyd Propps, granting in part, denying in part [1121−2] motion in limine to limit their testimony to their testimony to their areas of expertise in regards to witness Propps; see order for further details. ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 07/31/2000)

1190 MOTION by USA requesting leave to use laptop computers and a cellular telephone in the courthouse ; proposed order submitted (bls) (Entered: 08/01/2000)

1191 TRANSCRIPT of pretrial motion proceedings Volume 1 held on 7/20/00 before Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III re: [1157−1] appeal Court Reporter: Candi L. Moors, Diane Montana Reporting; Transcript filed separately. (bls) (Entered: 08/01/2000)

1192 MOTION by USA to substitute corrected pages of the United States' proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law (bls) (Entered: 08/02/2000)

1193 MOTION by Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Thomas Sellars for leave to use laptop computers and a cellular telephone in the courthouse (bls) (Entered: 08/02/2000)

1194 CORRECTED ORDER from USCA dated 7/17/00 dismissing [1141−1] appeal pursuant to appellant's motion for voluntary dismissal. USCA# 00−12596−BB (crs) (Entered: 08/02/2000)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 114 of 146

08/02/2000 08/02/2000 08/02/2000 08/02/2000 08/02/2000
08/03/2000 08/03/2000 08/03/2000 08/04/2000 08/04/2000 08/07/2000 08/07/2000
08/07/2000 08/07/2000
08/08/2000 08/08/2000 08/08/2000

1195 ORDER granting [1193−1] motion for leave to use laptop computers and a cellular telephone in the courthouse ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (bls) Modified on 08/04/2000 (Entered: 08/03/2000)
1196 MOTION by USA to take and submit into evidence videotaped deposition , to read into evidence portions of report due to unavailability of expert witness referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (bls) (Entered: 08/03/2000)
1197 MEMORANDUM by USA in support of [1196−1] motion to take and submit into evidence videotaped deposition, [1196−2] motion to read into evidence portions of report due to unavailability of expert witness (bls) (Entered: 08/03/2000)
1198 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE with Local Rule 3.01(g) by USA Re: [1196−1], [1196−2] motions (bls) Modified on 08/04/2000 (Entered: 08/03/2000)
1199 DECLARATION of Verlin H. Deerinwater by USA re: [1196−1] motion to take and submit into evidence videotaped deposition, [1196−2] motion to read into evidence portions of report due to unavailability of expert witness (bls) (Entered: 08/03/2000)
1200 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson requesting leave to use laptop computers, cellular telephone and wireless e−mail device in the courthouse (bls) (Entered: 08/04/2000)
1201 ORDER granting [1190−1] motion requesting leave to use laptop computer and a cellular telephone in the courthouse ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 08/04/2000)
1202 RESPONSE to the Court's request for an explanation of item #4, item #5, item #6, item #7 and item #8 of the Office of the Monitor's proposed July, 2000 through June 30, 2001 budget by Office of Monitor (bls) (Entered: 08/04/2000)
1203 ORDER granting [1200−1] motion requesting leave to use laptop computer, cellular telephone and wireless e−mail device in the courthouse ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 08/04/2000)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [1192−1] motion to substitute corrected pages of the United States' proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 08/07/2000)
1204 NOTICE of filing transcript of pretrial motion proceedings before Magistrate Judge McCoun by Robert Williams, Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars (bls) Modified on 08/09/2000 (Entered: 08/08/2000)
1205 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Thomas Sellars to [1202−1] response to court's request for an explanation of the 2000−2001 proposed budget (bls) Modified on 08/09/2000 (Entered: 08/08/2000)
1206 SUPPLEMENTAL ATTACHMENT by Robert Williams, Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Thomas Sellars to [1187−1] request for judicial notice (bls) (Entered: 08/08/2000)
1211 TRANSCRIPT of pretrial motion proceedings Volume 1 held on 7/20/00 before Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III re: [1157−1] appeal Court Reporter: Candi Moors, Montana Reporting; Transcript filed separately. USCA # 00−12916−B (cdm) (Entered: 08/09/2000)
1207 WITNESS LIST by defendant Robert Williams, defendant Fl Dept Of Health, defendant G. Pierce Wood Memor, defendant Thomas Sellars (bls) (Entered: 08/09/2000)
1208 MOTION by USA requesting leave to use a laser printer in the courthouse (bls) (Entered: 08/09/2000)
1209 ORDER granting [1208−1] motion requesting leave to use a laser printer in the courthouse ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 08/09/2000)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 115 of 146

08/08/2000 08/09/2000 08/09/2000 08/09/2000 08/09/2000 08/09/2000
08/10/2000
08/11/2000 08/14/2000 08/14/2000 08/15/2000 08/15/2000 08/16/2000 08/17/2000 08/18/2000 08/18/2000 08/18/2000 08/18/2000 08/18/2000

1210 SUPPLEMENTAL memorandum of law on the exclusion of witnesses under Fed.R.Evid. 615 by USA (bls) (Entered: 08/09/2000)

1212 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson with memorandum in support for attorney fees for the period 5/1/00 to 6/30/00 , for costs for the period 5/1/00 to 6/30/00 (bls) (Entered: 08/10/2000)

1213 BENCH TRIAL held on 8/7/00 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew Court Reporter: Paul Spangler (bls) (Entered: 08/10/2000)

1214 BENCH TRIAL held on 8/8/00 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew Court Reporter: Paul Spangler (bls) (Entered: 08/10/2000)

1215 BENCH TRIAL held on 8/9/00 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew Court Reporter: Paul Spangler (bls) (Entered: 08/10/2000)

1216

ORDER granting in part, denying in part [938−1] motion for attorneys' fees, granting in part, denying in part [938−2] motion costs for the period 7/1/99 to 8/31/99 granting in part, denying in part [992−1] motion for attorneys' fees, granting in part, denying in part [992−2] motion for costs for the period 9/1/99 to 10/31/99 denying [1061−1] motion for leave to file reply to defendants' response to class plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees for the period September−October, 1999, denying [1061−2] motion for evidentiary hearing. See order for details. ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 08/10/2000)

ENDORSED ORDER denying without prejudice [1016−1] motion to compel payment of uncontested portions of plaintiffs' fees and costs applications for January−August, 1999 ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 08/11/2000)

1217 BENCH TRIAL held on 8/10/00 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew Court Reporter: Paul Spangler (bls) (Entered: 08/14/2000)

1218 OBJECTION by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Thomas Sellars to [1189−1] order if the magistrate dated 7/28/00 (jlh) Modified on 08/15/2000 (Entered: 08/15/2000)

1219 BENCH TRIAL held on 8/14/00 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew Court Reporter: Paul Spangler (jlh) (Entered: 08/15/2000)

1220 MEMORANDUM by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Thomas Sellars in support of [1218−1] objection to the Magistrate Judges' order of 7/28/00 (jlh) (Entered: 08/15/2000)

1221 BENCH TRIAL held on 8/11/00 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew Court Reporter: Paul Spangler (bls) (Entered: 08/16/2000)

1222 BENCH TRIAL held on 8/15/00 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew Court Reporter: Paul Spangler (bls) (Entered: 08/17/2000)

1224 BENCH TRIAL held on 8/16/00 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew Court Reporter: Paul Spangler (bls) (Entered: 08/21/2000)

1223 CERTIFICATE of readiness with certified copies of indexed district court docket sheet sent to USCA re: [1157−1] (ROA consists of: Volume pleadings: 1; Volume transcripts: 1;) USCA# 00−12916−BB (crs) (Entered: 08/18/2000)

REQUEST by USCA to forward record on appeal re: [1157−1] appeal USCA # 00−12916−BB (crs) (Entered: 08/18/2000)

RECORD ON APPEAL sent to USCA re: [1157−1] appeal Transmittal includes: (ROA consists of: Volume pleadings: 1; Volume transcripts: 1;) USCA# 00−12916−BB (crs) (Entered: 08/18/2000)

1225 BENCH TRIAL held on 8/17/00 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew Court Reporter: Paul Spangler (bls) (Entered: 08/21/2000)

1226 NOTICE of substitution of counsel Robin L. Rosenberg, Holland and Knight, LLP, for Robert Shapiro, Holland and Knight, LLP by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson (bls) (Entered: 08/21/2000)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 116 of 146

08/21/2000
08/21/2000 08/21/2000 08/22/2000 08/23/2000 08/23/2000 08/24/2000 08/28/2000 08/28/2000 08/29/2000 08/30/2000 08/30/2000 08/30/2000
08/31/2000 09/01/2000 09/06/2000 09/06/2000 09/07/2000
09/07/2000

MOTIONS referred: [1196−2] motion to read into evidence portions of report due to unavailability of expert witness referred to Judge Susan C. Bucklew, [1187−1] motion for judicial notice referred to Judge Susan C. Bucklew (bls) (Entered: 08/21/2000)

1227 NOTICE of fiing transcript of trial date, 8/15/00 by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Thomas Sellars (bls) (Entered: 08/22/2000)

1228 TRANSCRIPT of non−jury trial held on 8/15/00 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew. Transcript filed separately. (bls) (Entered: 08/22/2000)

1229 BENCH TRIAL held on 8/21/00 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew Court Reporter: Paul Spangler (bls) (Entered: 08/23/2000)

1230 BENCH TRIAL held on 8/22/00 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew Court Reporter: Paul Spangler (bls) (Entered: 08/24/2000)

1231 OBJECTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Thomas Sellars to [1216−1] order (bls) (Entered: 08/24/2000)

1232 BENCH TRIAL held on 8/23/00 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew Court Reporter: Paul Spangler (bls) (Entered: 08/25/2000)

1233 BENCH TRIAL held on 8/24/00 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew Court Reporter: Paul Spangler (bls) (Entered: 08/29/2000)

1234 BENCH TRIAL held on 8/25/00 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew Court Reporter: Paul Spangler (bls) (Entered: 08/29/2000)

1235 BENCH TRIAL held on 8/28/00 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew Court Reporter: Paul Spangler (bls) (Entered: 08/30/2000)

1236 ORDER denying [1129−1] motion to depose the Monitor, denying [1129−2] motion to depose the Assistant Monitor ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 08/30/2000)

1237 BENCH TRIAL held on 8/29/00 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew. Court Reporter: Paul Spangler. (eec) (Entered: 08/31/2000)

1238

ORDER granting in part, denying in part [1017−1] motion for attorneys' fees, and [1017−2] motion costs for the period 11/1/99 to 12/31/99; denying [1062−1] motion for leave to file reply to defendants' response to class plaintiffs' motion for attorneys fees for the period November−December 1999; denying [1062−2] motion for evidentiary hearing; denying [1067−1] motion to strike supplemental exhibits to plaintiffs' motion for attorneys fees for the periods September−October and November−December 1999; denying [1036−1] motion to bar use of former monitor as plaintiffs' paralegal; see order for details. ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (eec) (Entered: 08/31/2000)

1239 BENCH TRIAL held on 8/30/00 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew Court Reporter: Paul Spangler (bls) (Entered: 09/01/2000)

1240 BENCH TRIAL held on 8/31/00 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew Court Reporter: Paul Spangler (bls) (Entered: 09/05/2000)

1241 BENCH TRIAL held on 9/5/00 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew Court Reporter: Paul Spangler (bls) (Entered: 09/07/2000)

1242 BENCH TRIAL held on 9/6/00 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew Court Reporter: Paul Spangler (bls) (Entered: 09/07/2000)

1243 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to extend time to respond to defendant's objections to Magistrate Judge's order awarding fees and costs for the period July−October 1999 (bls) (Entered: 09/08/2000)

1244 MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Thomas Sellars for leave to file response to plaintiffs' fee petition out of

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 117 of 146

09/07/2000
09/07/2000 09/08/2000 09/11/2000 09/11/2000 09/12/2000 09/13/2000 09/13/2000 09/14/2000 09/15/2000 09/15/2000 09/15/2000 09/18/2000 09/18/2000
09/19/2000 09/20/2000 09/20/2000 09/20/2000

time (bls) (Entered: 09/08/2000)
1245 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Thomas Sellars to [1212−1] motion for attorney fees for the period 5/1/00 to 6/30/00, [1212−2] motion for costs for the period 5/1/00 to 6/30/00 (bls) (Entered: 09/08/2000)
1245 MOTION by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Thomas Sellars with memorandum in support to stay consideration of fees matters until the conclusion of the DOJ litigation (bls) (Entered: 09/08/2000)
1246 BENCH TRIAL held on 9/7/00 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew Court Reporter: Paul Spangler (bls) (Entered: 09/11/2000)
ACKNOWLEDGMENT by USCA of receiving certificate of readiness on 8/22/00 re: [1157−1] appeal. USCA # 00−12916−BB (crs) (Entered: 09/12/2000)
ACKNOWLEDGMENT by USCA of receiving record on appeal on 8/22/00 re: [1157−1] appeal. USCA # 00−12916−BB (crs) (Entered: 09/12/2000)
1247 OBJECTION by Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Thomas Sellars to [1238−1] order awarding fees and costs for the period November−December 1999 (bls) (Entered: 09/12/2000)
1248 BENCH TRIAL held on 9/8/00 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew Court Reporter: Paul Spangler (bls) (Entered: 09/14/2000)
1249 NOTICE of exhibits placed in the exhibit room (1 folder and 9 boxes) (jlh) (Entered: 09/14/2000)
1250 MOTION by USA for leave to file proposed findings of fact exceeding 25 pages, but not to exceed 50 pages (bls) (Entered: 09/15/2000)
1251 MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Thomas Sellars to extend time in which to file post trial submissions (bls) (Entered: 09/18/2000)
1252 MEMORANDUM by Robert Williams, Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Thomas Sellars in support of [1251−1] motion to extend time in which to file post trial submissions (bls) (Entered: 09/18/2000)
1253 ORDER granting in part, denying in part [1171−1] motion for approval of proposed budget for 7/1/00 through 6/30/01. See order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 09/18/2000)
1254 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson in opposition to [1216−1] order (bls) (Entered: 09/19/2000)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [1243−1] motion to extend time to respond to defendant's objections to Magistrate Judge's order awarding fees and costs for the period July−October 1999. Response to defendant's objections to Magistrate Judge's order [1216−1] due on 9/18/00. ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 09/19/2000)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [1250−1] motion for leave to file proposed findings of fact exceeding 25 pages, but not to exceed 50 pages ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 09/20/2000)
1255 TRANSCRIPT of non−jury trial Volume 1 held on 8/7/00 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew, re: [1157−1] appeal; Court Reporter: Paul Spangler; Transcript filed separately; USCA #00−12916−B. (eec) (Entered: 09/20/2000)
1256 TRANSCRIPT of non−jury trial Volume 2 held on 8/8/00 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew, re: [1157−1] appeal; Court Reporter: Paul Spangler; Transcript filed separately; USCA #00−12916−B. (eec) (Entered: 09/20/2000)
1257 TRANSCRIPT of non−jury trial Volume 3 held on 8/9/00 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew; re: [1157−1] appeal; Court Reporter: Paul Spangler; Transcript filed separately; USCA #00−12916−B. (eec) (Entered: 09/20/2000)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 118 of 146

09/20/2000 09/20/2000 09/20/2000 09/20/2000 09/20/2000 09/20/2000 09/20/2000 09/20/2000 09/20/2000 09/20/2000
09/20/2000 09/20/2000 09/20/2000 09/20/2000 09/20/2000 09/20/2000 09/20/2000

1258 TRANSCRIPT of non−jury trial Volume 4 held on 8/10/00 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew, re: [1157−1] appeal; Court Reporter: Paul Spangler; Transcript filed separately; USCA #00−12916−B. (eec) (Entered: 09/20/2000)
1259 TRANSCRIPT of non−jury trial Volume 5 held on 8/11/00 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew, re: [1157−1] appeal; Court Reporter: Paul Spangler.; Transcript filed separately; USCA #00−12916−B. (eec) (Entered: 09/20/2000)
1260 TRANSCRIPT of non−jury trial Volume 6 held on 8/14/00 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew; re: [1157−1] appeal; Court Reporter: Paul Spangler; Transcript filed separately; USCA #00−12916−B. (eec) (Entered: 09/20/2000)
1261 TRANSCRIPT of non−jury trial Volume 7 held on 8/15/00 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew, re: [1157−1] appeal; Court Reporter: Paul Spangler; Transcript filed separately; USCA #00−12916−B. (eec) (Entered: 09/20/2000)
1262 TRANSCRIPT of non−jury trial Volume 8 held on 8/16/00 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew, re: [1157−1] appeal; Court Reporter: Paul Spangler; Transcript filed separately; USCA #00−12916−B. (eec) (Entered: 09/20/2000)
1263 TRANSCRIPT of non−jury trial Volume 9 held on 8/17/00 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew, re: [1157−1] appeal; Court Reporter: Paul Spangler; Transcript filed separately; USCA #00−12916−B. (eec) (Entered: 09/20/2000)
1264 TRANSCRIPT of non−jury trial Volume 10 held on 8/21/00 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew, re: [1157−1] appeal; Court Reporter: Paul Spangler; Transcript filed separately; USCA #00−12916−B. (eec) (Entered: 09/20/2000)
1265 TRANSCRIPT of non−jury trial Volume 11 held on 8/22/00 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew, re: [1157−1] appeal; Court Reporter: Paul Spangler; Transcript filed separately; USCA #00−12916−B. (eec) (Entered: 09/20/2000)
1266 TRANSCRIPT of non−jury trial Volume 12 held on 8/23/00 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew, re: [1157−1] appeal; Court Reporter: Paul Spangler; Transcript filed separately; USCA #00−12916−B. (eec) (Entered: 09/20/2000)
1267 TRANSCRIPT of non−jury trial Volume 13 held on 8/24/00 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew, re: [1157−1] appeal; Court Reporter: Paul Spangler; Transcript filed separately; USCA #00−12916−B. (eec) Modified on 09/20/2000 (Entered: 09/20/2000)
1268 TRANSCRIPT of non−jury trial Volume 14 held on 8/25/00 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew, re: [1157−1] appeal; Court Reporter: Paul Spangler; Transcript filed separately; USCA #00−12916−B. (eec) (Entered: 09/20/2000)
1269 TRANSCRIPT of non−jury trial Volume 15 held on 8/28/00 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew, re: [1157−1] appeal; Court Reporter: Paul Spangler; Transcript filed separately; USCA #00−12916−B. (eec) (Entered: 09/20/2000)
1270 TRANSCRIPT of non−jury trial Volume 16 held on 8/29/00 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew, re: [1157−1] appeal; Court Reporter: Paul Spangler; Transcript filed separately; USCA #00−12916−B. (eec) (Entered: 09/20/2000)
1271 TRANSCRIPT of non−jury trial Volume 17 held on 8/30/00 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew, re: [1157−1] appeal; Court Reporter: Paul Spangler; Transcript filed separately; USCA #00−12916−B. (eec) (Entered: 09/20/2000)
1272 TRANSCRIPT of non−jury trial Volume 18 held on 8/31/00 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew, re: [1157−1] appeal. Court Reporter: Paul Spangler; Transcript filed separately; USCA #00−12916−B. (eec) (Entered: 09/20/2000)
1273 TRANSCRIPT of non−jury trial Volume 19 held on 9/5/00 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew, re: [1157−1] appeal; Court Reporter: Paul Spangler; Transcript filed separately; USCA #00−12916−B. (eec) (Entered: 09/20/2000)
1274 TRANSCRIPT of non−jury trial Volume 20 held on 9/6/00 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew, re: [1157−1] appeal; Court Reporter: Paul Spangler; Transcript filed separately; USCA #00−12916−B. (eec) (Entered: 09/20/2000)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 119 of 146

09/20/2000 09/20/2000 09/20/2000
09/22/2000 09/22/2000 09/22/2000 09/22/2000 10/02/2000 10/10/2000 10/10/2000 10/16/2000 10/18/2000 10/18/2000 10/18/2000 10/24/2000 10/25/2000 10/26/2000
10/27/2000

1275 TRANSCRIPT of non−jury trial Volume 21 held on 9/7/00 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew, re: [1157−1] appeal; Court Reporter: Paul Spangler; Transcript filed separately; USCA #00−12916−B. (eec) (Entered: 09/20/2000)
1276 TRANSCRIPT of non−jury trial Volume 22 held on 9/8/00 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew, re: [1157−1] appeal; Court Reporter: Paul Spangler; Transcript filed separately; USCA #00−12916−B. (eec) (Entered: 09/20/2000)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [1251−1] motion to extend time in which to file post trial submissions. Post−trial findings of fact and briefings due on 9/22/00. NOTE: Endorsement made on memorandum in support of motion [1252−1]. ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) MFR Number ctc (bls) (Entered: 09/21/2000)
1277 POST TRIAL BRIEF by Robert Williams, Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Thomas Sellars (bls) (Entered: 09/25/2000)
1278 POST−TRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT by Robert Williams, Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Sellars (bls) (Entered: 09/25/2000)
1279 POST−TRIAL BRIEF (titled post−trial memorandum of law) by USA (bls) (Entered: 09/25/2000)
1280 PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT by USA (bls) (Entered: 09/25/2000)
1281 MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Thomas Sellars to substitute pages in response to plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees for the period May−June 2000 (bls) (Entered: 10/03/2000)
1282 MOTION by USA to renew arguments against defendants' second, twelfth and thirteenth affirmative defenses (bls) (Entered: 10/11/2000)
1283 MEMORANDUM by USA in support of [1282−1] motion to renew arguments against defendants' second, twelfth and thirteenth affirmative defenses (bls) (Entered: 10/11/2000)
MOTION no longer referred: [1281−1] motion to substitute pages in response to plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees for the period May−June 2000 (bls) (Entered: 10/16/2000)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [1244−1] motion for leave to file response to plaintiffs' fee petition out of time ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 10/19/2000)
MOTION referred: [1282−1] motion to renew arguments against defendants' second, twelfth and thirteenth affirmative defenses referred to Judge Susan C. Bucklew (bls) (Entered: 10/19/2000)
MOTION referred: [1281−1] motion to substitute pages in response to plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees for the period May−June 2000 referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (bls) (Entered: 10/19/2000)
1284 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson for attorney fees and costs for the period 7/1/00 to 8/31/00 (bls) (Entered: 10/25/2000)
1285 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Thomas Sellars to [1282−1] motion to renew arguments against defendants' second, twelfth and affirmative defenses (bls) (Entered: 10/26/2000)
1286 MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Thomas Sellars for leave to file a response to motion to renew United States' arguments against defendants' second, twelfth and thirteenth affirmative defenses (bls) (Entered: 10/27/2000)
1287 MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Thomas Sellars for enlargement of time until 11/17/00 to respond to plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees for the period July−August 2000 (bls) (Entered: 10/30/2000)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 120 of 146

11/01/2000 11/06/2000 11/06/2000 11/21/2000 11/24/2000 11/27/2000 11/27/2000 12/08/2000 12/12/2000 12/12/2000 12/13/2000 12/14/2000 12/20/2000 12/20/2000 12/20/2000 12/28/2000

ENDORSED ORDER granting [1281−1] motion to substitute pages in response to plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees for the period May−June 2000 ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 11/02/2000)
1288 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Thomas Sellars to [1284−1] motion for attorney fees and costs for the period 7/1/00 to 8/31/00 (jlh) (Entered: 11/07/2000)
1288 MOTION by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Thomas Sellars to stay consideration of fees mater until the conclusion of the DOJ litigation (jlh) (Entered: 11/07/2000)
1289 NOTICE of filing of time entries for Steven Schwartz in support of plaintiffs' application for fees and costs 7/1/00 through 8/31/00 by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson (bls) (Entered: 11/22/2000)
1290 OBJECTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars to Monitor's decision to conduct expanded review in District 15 (bls) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
1291 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars to [1284−1] motion for attorney fees and costs for the period 7/1/00 to 8/31/00 (bls) (Entered: 11/28/2000)
1292 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson with memorandum in support for attorney fees and costs for the period 9/1/00 to 10/31/00 (bls) (Entered: 11/28/2000)
1293 MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars for enlargement of time to respond to plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees for the period September through October 2000 (bls) (Entered: 12/11/2000)
MOTION referred: [1286−1] motion for leave to file a response to motion to renew United States' arguments against defendants' second, twelfth and thirteenth affirmative defenses referred to Judge Susan C. Bucklew per Law Clerk (bls) (Entered: 12/12/2000)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [1287−1] motion for enlargement of time until 11/17/00 to respond to plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees for the period July−August 2000 ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 12/13/2000)
1294 ORDER granting [1286−1] motion for leave to file a response to motion to renew United States' arguments against defendants' second, twelfth and thirteenth affirmative defenses ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 12/14/2000)
1295 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to [1290−1] objection to Monitor's decision to conduct expanded review in District 15 (bls) (Entered: 12/14/2000)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [1293−1] motion for enlargement of time to respond to plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees for the period September through October 2000 ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 12/20/2000)
1296 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Florida Dept Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars in opposition to [1292−1] motion for attorney fees and costs for the period 9/1/00 to 10/31/00 (bls) (Entered: 12/20/2000)
1296 MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Dept Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars to stay consideration of fees matters until the conclusion of the DOJ litigation (bls) (Entered: 12/20/2000)
1297 ORDER from USCA, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. USCA number 00−16253−B (cdm) (Entered: 12/28/2000)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 121 of 146

01/17/2001
01/19/2001 01/29/2001 01/29/2001 02/05/2001 02/07/2001 02/07/2001 02/12/2001 02/15/2001 02/20/2001 03/01/2001
03/05/2001 03/12/2001 03/21/2001 03/28/2001
04/02/2001

1298

ORDER granting in part, denying in part [1089−1] motion for attorney fees for the period 1/1/00 to 2/29/00, granting in part, denying in part [1089−2] motion for costs for the period 1/1/00 to 2/29/00; denying [1105−1] motion to stay consideration of attorneys' fee matters. See order for details. ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 01/18/2001)

1299 MOTION by Office of Monitor with memorandum in support for order approving revised budget for period of 7/1/00 to 6/30/01 referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (bls) (Entered: 01/22/2001)

1300 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Thomas Sellars to [1299−1] motion for order approving revised budget for period of 7/1/00 to 6/30/01 (bls) (Entered: 01/30/2001)

1301 OBJECTION by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Thomas Sellars to [1298−1] order (bls) (Entered: 01/30/2001)

1302 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson with memorandum in support for attorney fees and costs for the period 11/1/00 to 12/31/00 (bls) (Entered: 02/06/2001)

1303 NOTICE of withdrawal of Christy E. Lopez by USA (bls) (Entered: 03/02/2001)

1304 NOTICE of correction to plaintiffs' application for attorneys' fees and costs for the period 11/1/00 to 12/31/00 by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson (bls) (Entered: 03/02/2001)

1305 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson in opposition to [1301−1] objections to Magistrate Judge's order awarding fees for the period January−February, 2000. (rjc) (Entered: 02/13/2001)

1306 MOTION by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars for leave to file response to plaintiffs' fee petition out of time referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (mrh) (Entered: 02/16/2001)

1307 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Thomas Sellars to [1302−1] motion for attorney fees and costs for the period 11/1/00 to 12/31/00 (bls) (Entered: 02/21/2001)

1308

ORDER granting in part, denying in part [1158−1] motion for attorneys' fees, granting in part, denying in part [1158−2] motion for costs for the period 3/1/00 to 4/30/00 denying [1164−1] motion to stay consideration of fee matters until the conclusion of the Department of Justice litigation. See order for details. ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 03/02/2001)

1309 ORDER granting [1299−1] motion for order approving revised budget for period of 7/1/00 to 6/30/01 ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 03/06/2001)

1310 OBJECTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, Miller Frank Johnson, Thomas Sellars to [1308−1] order awarding fees and costs for the period March−April 2000 (bls) (Entered: 03/13/2001)

ENDORSED ORDER granting [1306−1] motion for leave to file response to plaintiffs' fee petition out of time ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 03/22/2001)

1311

ORDER granting in part, denying in part [1212−1] motion for attorney fees for the period 5/1/00 to 6/30/00, granting in part, denying in part [1212−2] motion for costs for the period 5/1/00 to 6/30/00 denying [1245−1] motion to stay consideration of fees matters until the conclusion of the DOJ litigation ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 03/28/2001)

1312 RESPONSE by USA in opposition to [1310−1] defendant's objections to magistrate judge's order awarding fees for the period March−April 2000 (bls) (Entered: 04/03/2001)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 122 of 146

04/17/2001 04/23/2001 05/07/2001 06/04/2001 06/13/2001 06/15/2001 06/28/2001
06/28/2001 06/28/2001 06/29/2001 06/29/2001 07/05/2001
07/09/2001

1313 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson with memorandum in support for attorney fees and costs for the period January 1, 2001 to February 28, 2001 (bls) (Entered: 04/17/2001)

1314 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Thomas Sellars to [1313−1] motion for attorney fees and costs for the period January 1, 2001 to February 28, 2001 (bls) (Entered: 04/24/2001)

1315 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars to [1314−1] motion response to plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees for period January−February 2001 (bls) (Entered: 05/08/2001)

1316 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson with memorandum in support for attorneys' fees and costs for the period 3/1/01 to 4/30/01 (bls) (Entered: 06/05/2001)

1317 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars to [1316−1] motion for attorneys' fees and costs for the period 3/1/01 to 4/30/01 (bls) (Entered: 06/14/2001)

1318 MOTION by Office of the Monitor for approval of proposed budget for 7/1/01 through 6/30/02 (bls) (Entered: 06/18/2001)

1319

ORDER: It is hereby ordered and adjudged that the Clerk shall enter final judgment in this matter in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs and plaintiff−intervenor in this matter on all claims raised and tried in Case No. 8:87−Civ−369−T−24TBM during the weeks of August 7, 2000 through September 8, 2000. ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (bls) Modified on 03/19/2002 (Entered: 06/28/2001)

1320 OBJECTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars to [1318−1] motion for approval of proposed budget for 7/1/01 through 6/30/02 (bls) (Entered: 06/29/2001)

1321 ORDER denying as moot [1282−1] motion to renew arguments against defendants' second, twelfth and thirteenth affirmative defenses ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 06/29/2001)

1322 JUDGMENT for Robert Williams, Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars against Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson, USA . Civil appeals checklist mailed. ( Signed by Deputy Clerk ) ctc (bls) Modified on 03/19/2002 (Entered: 06/29/2001)

CASE CLOSED. (bls) (Entered: 02/01/2002)

1323

NOTICE OF TELEPHONE STATUS CONFERENCE: set for 10:00 a.m. on 7/9/01 for [1318−1] motion for approval of proposed budget for 7/1/01 through 6/30/02; set for 10:00 a.m. on 7/9/01 for [1316−1] motion for attorneys' fees and costs for the period 3/1/01 to 4/30/01; set for 10:00 a.m. on 7/9/01 for [1313−1] motion for attorney fees and costs for the period January 1, 2001 to February 28, 2001; set for 10:00 a.m. on 7/9/01 for [1302−1] motion for attorney fees and costs for the period 11/1/00 to 12/31/00; set for 10:00 a.m. on 7/9/01 for [1292−1] motion for attorney fees and costs for the period 9/1/00 to 10/31/00; set for 10:00 a.m. on 7/9/01 for [1284−1] motion for attorney fees and costs for the period 7/1/00 to 8/31/00 Scheduled for Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ( Signed by Deputy Clerk ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 07/06/2001)

1324

MOTION HEARING held on 7/9/01 re: [1318−1] motion for approval of proposed budget for 7/1/01 through 6/30/02, [1316−1] motion for attorneys' fees and costs for the period 3/1/01 to 4/30/01, [1313−1] motion for attorney fees and costs for the period January 1, 2001 to February 28, 2001, [1302−1] motion for attorney fees and costs for the period 11/1/00 to 12/31/00, [1292−1] motion for attorney fees and costs for the period 9/1/00 to 10/31/00, [1284−1] motion for attorney fees and costs for the period 7/1/00 to 8/31/00 before Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III. Tape: 84/1−2290. (bls) (Entered: 07/10/2001)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 123 of 146

07/12/2001 07/16/2001 07/20/2001 07/20/2001 07/20/2001 07/20/2001 07/23/2001 07/23/2001 07/24/2001 07/27/2001
07/30/2001 07/30/2001 07/30/2001
07/30/2001 08/01/2001

1325 MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars for enlargement of time to file an application for attorneys' fees and costs (bls) (Entered: 07/13/2001)

ENDORSED ORDER granting [1325−1] motion for enlargement of time to file an application for attorneys' fees and costs for 60 days. Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 07/17/2001)

1326 MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars with memorandum in support to remove the monitor and assistant monitor , and request for evidentiary hearing (bls) (Entered: 07/23/2001)

1327 MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars with memorandum in support to terminate consent decree and exit criteria stipulation , to dismiss case with prejudice (bls) (Entered: 07/23/2001)

1327 REQUEST for oral argument by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars re: [1327−1] motion to terminate consent decree and exit criteria stipulation, [1327−2] motion to dismiss case with prejudice (bls) (Entered: 07/23/2001)

1328 MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars for leave to file long memorandum in support of [1327−1, 1327−2] motion to terminate consent decree and motion to dismiss case with prejudice (bls) (Entered: 07/23/2001)

1329 Revised proposed budget by Office of Monitor (bls) (Entered: 07/24/2001)

1330 ORDER denying as moot [1296−1] motion to stay consideration of fees matters until the conclusion of the DOJ litigation; denying as moot [1288−1] motion to stay consideration of fees mater until the conclusion of the DOJ litigation ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 07/24/2001)

1331 ORDER granting [1318−1] motion for approval of proposed budget for 7/1/01 through 6/30/02 ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 07/25/2001)

1332

ORDER deferring [1284−1] motion for attorney fees and costs for the period 7/1/00 to 8/31/00; deferring [1292−1] motion for attorney fees and costs for the period 9/1/00 to 10/31/00; deferring [1302−1] motion for attorney fees and costs for the period 11/1/00 to 12/31/00; deferring [1313−1] motion for attorney fees and costs for the period January 1, 2001 to February 28, 2001; deferring [1316−1] motion for attorneys' fees and costs for the period 3/1/01 to 4/30/01 ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 07/30/2001)

1333 NOTICE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson of change of address for counsel, James K. Green (bls) (Entered: 07/31/2001)

1334 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson with memorandum in support for attorneys' fees and costs for the period 5/1/01 to 6/30/01 (bls) (Entered: 07/31/2001)

1335

UNOPPOSED MOTION by USA (unopposed) to extend time to and including 9/6/01 to respond to defendants' motion to terminate consent decree and exit criteria stipulation , and (unopposed) to extend to and including 9/6/01 to respond to defendants' motion to remove the monitor and assistant monitor and request for evidentiary hearing time (bls) (Entered: 07/31/2001)

1336 ORDER referring case to mediation. Appointing Martha J. Cook as mediator. Conduct hearing by 10/28/01. Lead counsel, James K. Green, to coordinate dates. ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 07/31/2001)

MOTION no longer referred: [1335−1] unopposed motion to extend time to and including 9/6/01 to respond to defendants' motion to terminate consent decree and exit criteria stipulation; [1335−2] unopposed motion to extend to and including

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 124 of 146

08/03/2001 08/07/2001
08/08/2001
08/10/2001 08/10/2001 08/27/2001 08/27/2001 09/05/2001 09/06/2001 09/07/2001

9/6/01 to respond to defendants' motion to remove the monitor and assistant monitor and request for evidentiary hearing time; [1328−1] motion for leave to file long memorandum in support of [1327−1; 1327−2] motion to terminate consent decree and motion to dismiss case with prejudice; [1327−1] motion to terminate consent decree and exit criteria stipulation; [1327−2] motion to dismiss case with prejudice; [1326−1] motion to remove the monitor and assistant monitor; [1326−2] motion request for evidentiary hearing. Entry made per instruction from Magistrate Judge Law Clerk. (bls) (Entered: 08/01/2001)

1337 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson for 60 day extension to respond to motions to remove monitor and to terminate consent decree (bls) (Entered: 08/06/2001)

1338

ORDER granting [1337−1] motion for 60 day extension to respond to motions to remove monitor and to terminate consent decree, response to motion set to 10/9/01 for [1327−1] motion to terminate consent decree and exit criteria stipulation by intervenor−defendants; set to 10/9/01 for [1327−2] motion to dismiss case with prejudice by intervenor−defendants; set to 10/9/01 for [1326−1] motion to remove the monitor and assistant monitor by intervenor−defendants; set to 10/9/01 for [1326−2] motion request for evidentiary hearing by intervenor−defendants ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 08/08/2001)

1339

ORDER granting [1335−1] unopposed motion to extend time to and including 9/6/01 to respond to defendants' motion to terminate consent decree and exit criteria stipulation; granting [1335−2] unopposed motion to extend to and including 9/6/01 to respond to defendants' motion to remove the monitor and assistant monitor and request for evidentiary hearing time, response to motion set to 9/6/01 for [1327−1] motion to terminate consent decree and exit criteria stipulation by intervenor−defendants, set to 9/6/01 for [1327−2] motion to dismiss case with prejudice by intervenor−defendants, set to 9/6/01 for [1326−1] motion to remove the monitor and assistant monitor by intervenor−defendants, set to 9/6/01 for [1326−2] motion request for evidentiary hearing by intervenor−defendants ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (bls) Modified on 08/10/2001 (Entered: 08/09/2001)

1340 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, Thomas Sellars to [1334−1] motion for attorneys' fees and costs for the period 5/1/01 to 6/30/01 (bls) (Entered: 08/13/2001)

1340 MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, Thomas Sellars with memorandum in support for sanctions to be imposed on plaintiffs for filing frivolous fee and costs claims (bls) Modified on 08/13/2001 (Entered: 08/13/2001)

1341 ORDER: The Clerk is directed to replace page two of this Court's June 28, 2001 order (document number 1319) with the attached amended page two. ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 08/28/2001)

1342 Request to the Court for guidance by Office of Monitor (bls) (Entered: 08/28/2001)

1343

ORDER: This cause comes before the Court on the Office of the Monitor's Request to the Court for Guidance [1342−1]. Upon consideration, the Court directs the Office of the Monitor to respond by 10/9/01 to defendants motions under those parameters set forth in its request to the Court. ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 09/06/2001)

1344 UNOPPOSED MOTION by USA (unopposed) for extension of time, to and including 10/9/01, to respond to defendants' motion to terminate consent decree and exit criteria stipulation and defendants' motion to remove the monitor and assistant monitor and request for evidentiary hearing (bls) (Entered: 09/07/2001)

1345

ORDER (USCA) dated 9/5/01 that appellee's motion for attorney's fees construed as a motion to find appellees entitled to appellate attorneys' fees and non −taxable expenses and as a motion to remand to the District Court to determine the amounts to be awarded is granted. This matter is remanded to determine a reasonable amount of fees and expenses to be awarded to appellees for these appeals. Issued as the mandate: 9/5/01. USCA # 99−13458−BB and USCA # 00−10695−BB

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 125 of 146

09/10/2001 09/10/2001 09/10/2001
09/10/2001 09/10/2001 09/12/2001
09/12/2001 09/17/2001 09/17/2001
09/21/2001 10/01/2001 10/03/2001 10/04/2001 10/09/2001

appellee's (crs) (Entered: 09/10/2001)

1346 USCA DECISION (certified copy) [927−1] appeal, [928−1] appeal, [1035−1] appeal affirming judgment/order Opinion attached. Mandate date: 9/6/01 USCA EOD: 7/27/01 USCA # 99−13458−BB, 00−10695−BB (crs) (Entered: 09/10/2001)

RECORD on appeal returned from USCA re: (ROA consists of: Volume pleadings: 2;) USCA# 99−13458−BB, 00−10695−BB (crs) (Entered: 09/10/2001)

1347

NOTICE of filing declaration of Clinical Services Management P.C. (CSM) and amended appendix to defendants' motion to remove the monitor and assistant monitor and request for evidentiary hearing by Robert Williams, Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, Thomas Sellars (bls) (Entered: 09/12/2001)

1348 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, Thomas Sellars to [1342−1] Office of the Monitor's request to the Court for guidance (bls) (Entered: 09/12/2001)

1349 NOTICE of appearance of additional counsel for Department of Children and Families by Ronald L. Harrop (bls) (Entered: 09/12/2001)

ENDORSED ORDER granting [1344−1] unopposed motion for extension of time, to and including 10/9/01, to respond to defendants' motion to terminate consent decree and exit criteria stipulation and defendants' motion to remove the monitor and assistant monitor and request for evidentiary hearing, response to motion set to 10/9/01 for [1326−1] motion to remove the monitor and assistant monitor by intervenor−defendby defendants ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (bls) Modified on 09/17/2001 (Entered: 09/13/2001)

1350 ORDER: set appellate attorney's fees and expenses motion filing deadline for 10/1/01 Defendants are directed to file their response to plaintiffs' motion by 10/18/01. ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 09/13/2001)

1351 MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, Thomas Sellars for award of attorney's fees and expenses against the United States (bls) (Entered: 09/18/2001)

1352

UNOPPOSED MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, Thomas Sellars for defendants' memorandum of law in support of application for award of attorney's fees and expenses against the United States to exceed the twenty page limit . Proposed memorandum in support forwarded to chambers. (bls) (Entered: 09/18/2001)

1353 MEDIATION REPORT. Mediation conference held: 9/13/01. Martha J. Cook, mediator. Hearing outcome: The conference was continued with the consent of all parties and counsel. A telephonic mediation conference will be held on 9/26/01. (bls) (Entered: 09/24/2001)

1354 UNOPPOSED MOTION by USA (unopposed) for 30 day extension of time until 11/1/01 to respond to defendant's application for award of attorney's fees and expenses (bls) Modified on 10/01/2001 (Entered: 10/01/2001)

ENDORSED ORDER granting [1354−1] unopposed motion for 30 day extension of time until 11/1/01 to respond to defendant's application for award of attorney's fees and expenses. (Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew), ctc (ag) (Entered: 10/04/2001)

1355 MEDIATION REPORT. Mediation conference held: 9/13/01 with a continued telephonic mediation conference held on 9/26/01. Martha J. Cook, mediator. Hearing outcome: partially resolved as to attorneys fees. (bls) (Entered: 10/04/2001)

1356 ORDER granting [1328−1] motion for leave to file long memorandum in support of [1327−1, 1327−2] motion to terminate consent decree and motion to dismiss case with prejudice ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 10/10/2001)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 126 of 146

10/09/2001 10/09/2001 10/09/2001 10/09/2001
10/09/2001 10/09/2001 10/09/2001 10/11/2001
10/11/2001
10/11/2001 10/11/2001 10/12/2001 10/12/2001 10/18/2001
10/18/2001
10/19/2001 10/22/2001

1357 MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars to stay appointment of a replacement monitor (bls) (Entered: 10/10/2001)
1358 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Office of Monitor (unopposed) for extension of time until 10/17/01 to file response to defendants' motion to remove the monitor and assistant monitor and request for evidentiary hearing (bls) (Entered: 10/10/2001)
1359 AGREED MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson (agreed) to extend time until 10/17/01 to respond to motion to remove monitor (bls) Modified on 10/11/2001 (Entered: 10/10/2001)
1360 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to exceed page limitation for response in opposition to defendant's motion to terminate consent decree and exit criteria (proposed response forwarded to chambers) (bls) Modified on 10/10/2001 (Entered: 10/10/2001)
1361 NOTICE of attorney appearance for USA by Lisa Wilson Edwards (bls) (Entered: 10/11/2001)
1362 MOTION by USA to bifurcate attorney's fees proceedings (bls) (Entered: 10/11/2001)
1363 MEMORANDUM by USA in support of [1362−1] motion to bifurcate attorney's fees proceedings (bls) (Entered: 10/11/2001)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [1359−1] agreed motion to extend time until 10/17/01 to respond to motion to remove monitor, response to motion set to 10/17/01 for [1326−1] motion to remove the monitor and assistant monitor by defendants ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 10/11/2001)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [1358−1] unopposed motion for extension of time until 10/17/01 to file response to defendants' motion to remove the monitor and assistant monitor and request for evidentiary hearing, response to motion set to 10/17/01 for [1326−1] motion to remove the monitor and assistant monitor by defendants ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 10/11/2001)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [1360−1] motion to exceed page limitation for response in opposition to defendant's motion to terminate consent decree and exit criteria ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 10/11/2001)
1364 RESPONSE Miller Frank Johnson, et al. (plaintiffs) in opposition to [1327−1] motion to terminate consent decree and exit criteria stipulation, [1327−2] motion to dismiss case with prejudice (bls) (Entered: 10/11/2001)
CASE no longer referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (mrh) (Entered: 10/12/2001)
MAGISTRATE JUDGE CASE ASSIGNMENT Magistrate assigned: Thomas B. McCoun, III (mrh) (Entered: 10/12/2001)
1365 STIPULATION of settlement of attorney fees , and costs claims through 6/30/01 by plaintiff Daniel Fennell, plaintiff Sandra Guinn, plaintiff Gail Bjerkenes, plaintiff Lloyd Koger, defendant Fl Dept Of Health/re, defendant G. Pierce Wood Memor, plaintiff Miller Frank Johnson . (jlh) (Entered: 10/18/2001)
1366 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to [1326−1] motion to remove the monitor and assistant monitor, [1326−2] motion request for evidentiary hearing (jlh) (Entered: 10/18/2001)
1367 RESPONSE by Office of Monitor to [1326−1] motion to remove the monitor and assistant monitor (jlh) (Entered: 10/19/2001)
1368 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars to Monitor's letter of 10/19/01 and EMERGENCY MOTION (emergency) to accept the Monitor's resignation (bls) (Entered: 10/23/2001)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 127 of 146

10/22/2001 10/23/2001 10/25/2001 10/25/2001 10/29/2001 10/29/2001 10/30/2001
10/30/2001 10/30/2001 10/31/2001 10/31/2001 11/02/2001

1369 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson for 6−day extension of time to respond to defendants' motion to stay appointment of a replacement monitor (bls) (Entered: 10/23/2001)

1370 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Thomas Sellars in opposition to [1362−1] motion to bifurcate attorney's fees proceedings (bls) (Entered: 10/24/2001)

ENDORSED ORDER granting [1369−1] motion for 6−day extension of time to respond to defendants' motion to stay appointment of a replacement monitor, response to motion set to 10/26/01 for [1357−1] motion to stay appointment of a replacement monitor by intervenor−defendants ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (bls) Modified on 10/26/2001 (Entered: 10/25/2001)

1371 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to [1357−1] motion to stay appointment of a replacement monitor (bls) (Entered: 10/26/2001)

1372 MOTION by USA for extension of time until 1/30/02 to respond to the State's application for award of attorneys' fees and expenses (bls) (Entered: 10/30/2001)

1373 MEMORANDUM by USA in support of [1372−1] motion for extension of time until 1/30/02 to respond to the State's application for award of attorneys' fees and expenses (bls) (Entered: 10/30/2001)

MOTIONS referred: [1368−1] emergency motion to accept the Monitor's resignation referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III, [1362−1] motion to bifurcate attorney's fees proceedings referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III, [1357−1] motion to stay appointment of a replacement monitor referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III, [1352−1] consent motion for defendants' memorandum of law in support of application for award of attorney's fees and expenses against the United States to exceed the twenty page limit referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III, [1351−1] motion for award of attorney's fees and expenses against the United States referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III, [1340−1] motion for sanctions to be imposed on plaintiffs for filing frivolous fee and costs claims referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III, [1334−1] motion for attorneys' fees and costs for the period 5/1/01 to 6/30/01 referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III, [1326−1] motion to remove the monitor and assistant monitor referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III, [1326−2] motion request for evidentiary hearing referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (bls) (Entered: 10/30/2001)

1374 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to [1368−2] response to Monitor's letter of October 19, 2001 (bls) (Entered: 10/30/2001)

1374 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to [1368−1] emergency motion to accept the Monitor's resignation (bls) (Entered: 10/30/2001)

MOTION referred: [1372−1] motion for extension of time until 1/30/02 to respond to the State's application for award of attorneys' fees and expenses referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (bls) (Entered: 10/31/2001)

ENDORSED ORDER granting [1352−1] consent motion for defendants' memorandum of law in support of application for award of attorney's fees and expenses against the United States to exceed the twenty page limit ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 11/01/2001)

1375

NOTICE OF HEARING: Motion hearing set for 10:30 a.m. on 11/9/01 for [1368−1] emergency motion to accept the Monitor's resignation; set for 10:30 a.m. on 11/9/01 for [1357−1] motion to stay appointment of a replacement monitor; set for 10:30 a.m. on 11/9/01 for [1326−1] motion to remove the monitor and assistant monitor; set for 10:30 a.m. on 11/9/01 for [1326−2] motion request for evidentiary hearing. Scheduled for Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ( Signed by Deputy Clerk ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 11/05/2001)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 128 of 146

11/05/2001 11/08/2001 11/09/2001
11/09/2001 11/19/2001 11/19/2001
11/28/2001 11/28/2001
11/29/2001
11/30/2001
12/07/2001
12/12/2001 12/12/2001 12/14/2001
12/17/2001 12/18/2001 12/19/2001

1376 REPORT on hospital closure and REQUEST by Office of Monitor for guidance (bls) (Entered: 11/06/2001)

Re−mailed [1375−1] notice of hearing per instructions from Magistrate Judge's Law Clerk. (bls) (Entered: 11/08/2001)

1377

MOTION HEARING held on 11/9/01 re: [1368−1] emergency motion to accept the Monitor's resignation, [1357−1] motion to stay appointment of a replacement monitor, [1326−1] motion to remove the monitor and assistant monitor, [1326−2] motion request for evidentiary hearing before Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III. Tape: 206/485−2485. (bls) (Entered: 11/13/2001)

1378 ORDER denying [1357−1] motion to stay appointment of a replacement monitor. See order for further details. ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 11/13/2001)

1379 OBJECTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Martin Von Holden to [1378−1] order (bls) (Entered: 11/20/2001)

1379 EMERGENCY MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Martin Von Holden (emergency) to modify the consent decree referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (bls) (Entered: 11/20/2001)

MOTION no longer referred per Magistrate Judge's Law Clerk: [1379−1] emergency motion to modify the consent decree (bls) (Entered: 11/28/2001)

1380 SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION [1326−1] (supplemental) to remove the interim monitor , (supplemental) for evidentiary hearing by Robert Williams, Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Martin Von Holden (bls) (Entered: 11/29/2001)

1381 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson in opposition to [1379−1] emergency motion to modify the consent decree, [1379−1] objection to magistrate judge's order of 11/9/01 (bls) (Entered: 11/30/2001)

1382

NOTICE OF HEARING: Motion hearing set for 9:00 a.m. on 12/14/01 for [1380−1] supplemental motion to remove the interim monitor. Scheduled for Judge Susan C. Bucklew , set hearing to 9:00 a.m. on 12/14/01 for [1379−1] objection to magistrate judge's report and recommendation ( Signed by Deputy Clerk ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 12/03/2001)

1383 AGREED MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson (agreed) to continue the hearing on objections to report and recommendation (document 1379) and supplemental motion to remove interim monitor (document 1380) (bls) (Entered: 12/10/2001)

1384 RESPONSE by Office of Monitor to [1380−1] supplemental motion to remove the interim monitor (bls) (Entered: 12/13/2001)

1384 SECOND REPORT on hospital closure by Office of Monitor (bls) (Entered: 12/13/2001)

1385 SUPPLEMENT by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to [1383−1] agreed motion to continue the hearing on objections to report and recommendation (document 1379) and supplemental motion to remove interim monitor (document 1380) (bls) (Entered: 12/17/2001)

1386 NOTICE of availability by Robert Williams, Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Martin Von Holden (bls) (Entered: 12/17/2001)

1387 Correspondence written by Linda L. Glenn as to intention of resignation by Office of the Monitor (bls) (Entered: 12/19/2001)

1388 NOTICE OF HEARING: set hearing for 9:00 a.m. on 1/15/02 scheduled for Judge Susan C. Bucklew ( Signed by Deputy Clerk ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 12/20/2001)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 129 of 146

12/20/2001
12/20/2001
12/21/2001 12/28/2001 12/28/2001 01/03/2002 01/15/2002 01/15/2002 01/15/2002 01/16/2002 01/22/2002 01/23/2002 01/24/2002 01/25/2002 01/25/2002 01/28/2002

ENDORSED ORDER granting [1372−1] motion for extension of time until 1/30/02 to respond to the State's application for award of attorneys' fees and expenses, response to motion set to 1/30/02 for [1351−1] motion for award of attorney's fees and expenses against the United States by defendants ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 12/21/2001)

1389

ORDER granting [1383−1] agreed motion to continue the hearing on objections to report and recommendation (document 1379) and supplemental motion to remove interim monitor (document 1380), Motion hearing set for 9:00 a.m. on 1/15/02 for [1380−1] supplemental motion (supplemental) to remove the interim monitor, set for 9:00 a.m. on 1/15/02 for [1379−1] emergency motion to modify the consent decree Scheduled for Judge Susan C. Bucklew ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 12/21/2001)

1390 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson in opposition to [1380−1] supplemental motion to remove the interim monitor, [1380−2] supplemental motion for evidentiary hearing. (jnb) (Entered: 12/26/2001)

1391 CORRESPONDENCE by Linda L. Glenn, Court Monitor, re: resignation. (mrh) (Entered: 12/31/2001)

1392 CORRESPONDENCE with attachments by Linda L. Glenn, Court Monitor re: follow−up to [1391−1] resignation letter. (mrh) (Entered: 12/31/2001)

1393 ORDER denying [1380−2] supplemental motion for evidentiary hearing ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 01/04/2002)

1394 ORDER granting [1362−1] motion to bifurcate attorney's fees proceedings ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 01/16/2002)

1395 NOTICE OF HEARING: Motion hearing set for 2:00 p.m. on 2/20/02 for [1351−1] motion for award of attorney's fees and expenses against the United States Scheduled for Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ( Signed by Deputy Clerk ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 01/16/2002)

1396 MOTION HEARING held on 1/15/02 re: [1379−1] emergency motion to modify the consent decree before Judge Susan C. Bucklew. Court Reporter: Paul Spangler (bls) (Entered: 01/16/2002)

1397 ORDER overruling [1379−1] objection to the Magistrate's 11/9/02 order; denying [1379−1] emergency motion to modify the consent decree; [1380−1] supplemental motion to remove the interim monitor referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 01/17/2002)

1398 NOTICE OF HEARING: Telephonic Motion hearing set for 11:00 a.m. on 1/30/02 for [1380−1] supplemental motion to remove the interim monitor. Scheduled for Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ( Signed by Deputy Clerk ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 01/23/2002)

1399 TRANSCRIPT of motion hearing re: [1379−1] emergency motion to modify the consent decree held on 1/15/02 before Judge Bucklew. Transcript filed separately. (bls) (Entered: 01/24/2002)

1400 NOTICE of filing resume of interim monitor, Susan Curan by Office of the Monitor (bls) (Entered: 01/25/2002)

1401 ORDER (USCA) granting appellant's motion to dismiss [1157−1] appeal with prejudice. Issued as the mandate: 1/23/02. USCA # 00−12916−BB (crs) (Entered: 01/25/2002)

RECORD on appeal returned from USCA re: (ROA consists of: Volume pleadings: 1; Volume transcripts: 1;) USCA # 00−12916−BB (crs) (Entered: 01/25/2002)

1402 REPORT of visit to G. Pierce Woods Hospital by Office of the Monitor (bls) (Entered: 01/29/2002)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 130 of 146

01/29/2002 01/30/2002 01/30/2002 01/30/2002 01/30/2002 01/30/2002 02/05/2002 02/05/2002 02/11/2002 02/13/2002 02/19/2002
02/21/2002 02/21/2002
02/22/2002 02/22/2002 02/25/2002

1403 ORDER denying as moot [1376−1] motion for guidance ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 01/30/2002)

1404 NOTICE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson of change of address and attorney of record (bls) (Entered: 01/31/2002)

1405 MOTION HEARING held on 1/30/02 re: [1380−1] supplemental motion to remove the interim monitor, [1380−2] supplemental motion for evidentiary hearing before Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III. Tape: 14/836−1532. (bls) (Entered: 01/31/2002)

1406 ORDER deferring ruling on [1380−1] supplemental motion to remove the interim monitor; deferring ruling on [1380−2] supplemental motion for evidentiary hearing ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 01/31/2002)

1407 MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Deppartment Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Martin Von Holden for reconsideration of [1397−1] order (bls) (Entered: 01/31/2002)

1408 UNOPPOSED MOTION by USA (unopposed) for leave to file brief in excess of 20 page−limit referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (proposed brief for the United States opposing liability for defendant's attorneys' fees and expenses forwarded to chambers) (bls) Modified on 02/01/2002 (Entered: 01/31/2002)

1409 ORDER granting [1408−1] unopposed motion for leave to file brief in excess of 20 page−limit ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 02/06/2002)

1410 BRIEF by USA in opposition to [1351−1] motion for award of attorney's fees and expenses against the United States (bls) (Entered: 02/06/2002)

1411 NOTICE of hospital closure by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson (rjc) (Entered: 02/12/2002)

1412 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson in opposition to [1407−1] motion for reconsideration of [1397−1] order (bls) (Entered: 02/14/2002)

1413

MOTION by Robert Williams, Fl Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Martin Von Holden for leave to file long memorandum . Proposed defendants' supplemental motion to terminate consent decree and exit criteria stipulation forwarded to chambers. (bls) Modified on 02/21/2002 (Entered: 02/20/2002)

ENDORSED ORDER granting [1413−1] motion for leave to file long memorandum ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 02/22/2002)

1414

SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION [1327−1], [1327−2] (supplemental) to terminate consent decree and exit criteria stipulation , (supplemental) to dismiss case with prejudice, including count 4, the legal access claim by Robert Williams, Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Martin Von Holden (bls) (Entered: 02/22/2002)

Copy of document number 1378 addressed to Deval L. Patrick returned. Re−mailed to address listed on "notify sender of new address" label. Requested notice of change of address. (bls) (Entered: 02/25/2002)

Copy of document number 1378 addressed to Joseph R. Zogby returned. Re−mailed to address listed on "notify sender of new address" label. Requested notice of change of address. (bls) (Entered: 02/25/2002)

1415 MOTION HEARING held on 2/20/02 re: [1351−1] motion for award of attorney's fees and expenses against the United States before Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III. Tapes: 19/2541−end and 20/1−595. (bls) (Entered: 02/26/2002)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 131 of 146

03/04/2002 03/05/2002 03/06/2002 03/07/2002
03/11/2002 03/12/2002 03/12/2002 03/14/2002 03/18/2002
03/19/2002
03/25/2002 03/25/2002 04/01/2002
04/02/2002

1416 REQUEST by Office of the Monitor for guidance (bls) (Entered: 03/05/2002)

1417 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson (unopposed) for 14 day extension of time up to and including 3/19/02 to respond to defendants' supplemental motion to terminate consent decree and exit criteria (bls) (Entered: 03/06/2002)

1418 TRANSCRIPT of oral argument re: attorney fees held on 2/20/02 before Judge McCoun. Transcript filed separately. (bls) (Entered: 03/07/2002)

1419

ORDER granting [1417−1] unopposed motion for 14 day extension of time up to and including 3/19/02 to respond to defendants' supplemental motion to terminate consent decree and exit criteria, response to motion set to 3/19/02 for [1414−1] supplemental motion to terminate consent decree and exit criteria stipulation by defendants, set to 3/19/02 for [1414−2] supplemental motion to dismiss case with prejudice, including count 4, the legal access claim by defendants ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 03/08/2002)

1420 MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, Martin Von Holden to expedite consideration of the dispositive motions to terminate , or, in the alternative, for evidentiary hearing on the motion to recuse the monitor (bls) (Entered: 03/12/2002)

1421 TRANSCRIPT of status hearing held on 1/30/02 before Judge McCoun. Transcript filed separately. (bls) (Entered: 03/12/2002)

1422 ORDER [1416−1] motion for guidance referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 03/13/2002)

Copy of document number 1375 addressed to Joseph R. Zogby returned. Re−mailed to address on postal service forwarding label. (bls) (Entered: 03/15/2002)

1423

RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson in opposition to [1414−1] supplemental motion to terminate consent decree and exit criteria stipulation, [1414−2] supplemental motion to dismiss case with prejudice, including count 4, the legal access claim (bls) (Entered: 03/19/2002)

1424

ORDER deferring [1414−1] supplemental motion to terminate consent decree and exit criteria stipulation; deferring [1414−2] supplemental motion to dismiss case with prejudice, including count 4, the legal access claim; deferring [1327−1] motion to terminate consent decree and exit criteria stipulation; deferring [1327−2] motion to dismiss case with prejudice ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 03/20/2002)

1425 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to [1416−1] request for guidance (bls) (Entered: 03/26/2002)

1426 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to [1420−1] motion to expedite consideration of the dispositive motions to terminate, [1420−2] motion for evidentiary hearing on the motion to recuse the monitor (bls) (Entered: 03/26/2002)

1427

ORDER granting in part, denying in part [1420−1] motion to expedite consideration of the dispositive motions to terminate, granting in part, denying in part [1420−2] motion for evidentiary hearing on the motion to recuse the monitor, Motion hearing set for 9:00 a.m. on 5/9/02 for [1414−1] supplemental motion to terminate consent decree and exit criteria stipulation, set for 9:00 a.m. on 5/9/02 for [1414−2] supplemental motion to dismiss case with prejudice, including count 4, the legal access claim, set for 9:00 a.m. on 5/9/02 for [1327−1] motion to terminate consent decree and exit criteria stipulation, set for 9:00 a.m. on 5/9/02 for [1327−2] motion to dismiss case with prejudice Scheduled for Judge Susan C. Bucklew ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 04/02/2002)

1428 ORDER denying [1407−1] motion for reconsideration of [1397−1] order ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 04/03/2002)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 132 of 146

04/03/2002 04/03/2002 04/23/2002 04/25/2002 04/26/2002
05/01/2002 05/01/2002 05/06/2002 05/06/2002 05/08/2002
05/09/2002 05/10/2002 05/10/2002 05/10/2002 05/15/2002 05/22/2002

1429 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Martin Von Holden to [1416−1] motion for guidance (bls) Modified on 04/04/2002 (Entered: 04/04/2002)

1429 OBJECTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Martin Von Holden to Monitor's proposed activity (bls) Modified on 04/04/2002 (Entered: 04/04/2002)

1430 MEMORANDUM by Robert Williams, Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Martin Von Holden in support of [1351−1] motion for award of attorney's fees and expenses against United States (bls) (Entered: 04/23/2002)

1431 NOTICE OF HEARING: Motion hearing set for 10:30 a.m. on 5/1/02 for [1416−1] motion for guidance Scheduled for Magistrate Thomas B. McCoun III ( Signed by Deputy Clerk ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 04/26/2002)

1432

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III recommending that defendants' [1351−1] motion for award of attorney's fees and expenses against the United States be denied in part and granted in part; motion no longer referred; Objections to R and R due by 5/13/02 ctc (ag) (Entered: 04/29/2002)

1433 Telephone conference held on 5/1/02 re: [1416−1] Monitor's request for guidance before Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III. Tape: 39/432−1197. (bls) (Entered: 05/02/2002)

1434 MOTION by Office of Monitor with memorandum in support for leave to appear by telephone for hearing scheduled for 5/9/02 (bls) (Entered: 05/02/2002)

ENDORSED ORDER granting [1434−1] motion for leave to appear by telephone for hearing scheduled for 5/9/02 ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 05/07/2002)

1435 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson (unopposed) to accelerate hearing on defendants' motion to terminate (bls) (Entered: 05/07/2002)

1436

NOTICE OF HEARING: Motion hearing set for 10:00 a.m. on 5/22/02 for [1414−1] supplemental motion to terminate consent decree and exit criteria stipulation, set for 10:00 a.m. on 5/22/02 for [1414−2] supplemental motion to dismiss case with prejudice, including count 4, the legal access claim, set for 10:00 a.m. on 5/22/02 for [1327−1] motion to terminate consent decree and exit criteria stipulation, set for 10:00 a.m. on 5/22/02 for [1327−2] motion to dismiss case with prejudice. Scheduled for Judge Susan C. Bucklew ( Signed by Deputy Clerk ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 05/09/2002)

ENDORSED ORDER denying [1435−1] unopposed motion to accelerate hearing on defendants' motion to terminate ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 05/10/2002)

1437 MEMORANDUM by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson supporting authority of Monitor to monitor class members transferred to other hospitals (bls) (Entered: 05/13/2002)

1438 OBJECTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Martin Von Holden to [1432−1] report and recommendations (bls) (Entered: 05/13/2002)

1439 MEMORANDUM by Robert Williams, Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Martin Von Holden in support of [1438−1] objection to report and recommendation (bls) (Entered: 05/13/2002)

1440 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Florida Department Of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Martin Von Holden in opposition to [1437−1] memorandum of law supporting authority of Monitor to monitor class members transferred to other hospitals (bls) (Entered: 05/16/2002)

1441 MOTION by USA for extension of time until 6/7/02 to respond to the State's objections to the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation on the application

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 133 of 146

05/22/2002 05/23/2002
05/24/2002 06/03/2002
06/03/2002 06/07/2002 06/12/2002 06/20/2002 06/21/2002 06/21/2002 06/24/2002 06/25/2002 06/28/2002

for award of attorneys' fees and expenses (bls) (Entered: 05/23/2002)

1442 MEMORANDUM by USA in support of [1441−1] motion for extension of time until 6/7/02 to respond to the State's objections to the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation on the application for award of attorneys' fees and expenses (bls) (Entered: 05/23/2002)

1443

MOTION HEARING held on 5/22/02 re: [1414−1] supplemental motion to terminate consent decree and exit criteria stipulation, [1414−2] supplemental motion to dismiss case with prejudice, including count 4, the legal access claim, [1327−1] motion to terminate consent decree and exit criteria stipulation, [1327−2] motion to dismiss case with prejudice before Judge Susan C. Bucklew. Court Reporter: Paul Spangler. (bls) (Entered: 05/24/2002)

1444 ORDER granting [1441−1] motion for extension of time until 6/7/02 to respond to the State's objections to the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation on the application for award of attorneys' fees and expenses ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (ch) (Entered: 05/28/2002)

1445

ORDER granting in part, denying in part [1414−1] supplemental motion to terminate consent decree and exit criteria stipulation, granting in part, denying in part [1414−2] supplemental motion to dismiss case with prejudice, including count 4, the legal access claim, granting in part, denying in part [1327−1] motion to terminate consent decree and exit criteria stipulation, granting in part, denying in part [1327−2] motion to dismiss case with prejudice. To the extent the motions seek to terminate consent decree paragraphs 2, 37, and 35 as it pertains to the monitoring of defendants' community obligations, and the Community Compliance Exit Criteria, the motions are denied; otherwise, the motions are granted. ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 06/03/2002)

1446 ORDER: The monitor has no authority to monitor conditions at Florida State Hospital or any other state hospital. See order for details. ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 06/03/2002)

1447 BRIEF by USA in opposition to [1438−1] the State's objections to the Magistrate's report and recommendation on attorneys' fees and expenses (bls) (Entered: 06/10/2002)

1448 NOTICE OF HEARING: set telephone status conference for 10:00 a.m. on 6/21/02 scheduled for Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ( Signed by Deputy Clerk ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 06/13/2002)

1449 MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Martin Von Holden with memorandum in support to modify the class definition STRICKEN PURSUANT TO [1481−1] ORDER DATED 12/2/02 (bls) Modified on 12/02/2002 (Entered: 06/21/2002)

1450 TELEPHONE STATUS CONFERENCE re: monitor's request for guidance held on 6/21/02 before Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III. Tape: 58/778−1430. (bls) (Entered: 06/24/2002)

1451 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Kathleen Kearney, secretary of the Dept. of Children re: [1445−1] order. Filing fee $105.00; Receipt # T016416. Transcript information form due 7/5/02 ctc (crs) (Entered: 06/24/2002)

TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of certified copies of notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable, re: [1451−1] appeal. Transcript information form sent. (crs) (Entered: 06/24/2002)

1452

TRANSCRIPT of motion hearing (re: [1327−1] motion to terminate consent decree, [1327−1] motion to dismiss case, [1414−1] supplemental motion to terminate consent decree, [1414−2] supplemental motion to dismiss case) held on 5/22/02 before Judge Bucklew. Transcript filed separately. (bls) (Entered: 06/26/2002)

1453 MOTION by Robert Williams, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Martin Von Holden for leave to file a reply to brief referred to Magistrate Judge

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 134 of 146

06/28/2002 06/28/2002 07/01/2002 07/03/2002 07/03/2002 07/08/2002 07/12/2002 07/19/2002 07/24/2002 07/24/2002 07/25/2002 07/26/2002
07/29/2002 07/30/2002
08/05/2002

Thomas B. McCoun III. (eec) (Entered: 06/28/2002)

ENDORSED ORDER granting [1453−1] motion for leave to file a reply to brief ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 07/01/2002)

1454 REPLY by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Martin Von Holden to [1447−1] United State's brief opposing the State's objections to the Magistrate's report and recommendation on attorney's fees and expenses (bls) (Entered: 07/01/2002)

NOTICE assigning 11th Circuit case number re: [1451−1] appeal (Kearney). The initial appeal package was filed with the USCA on 6/26/02. USCA case #: 02−13499−D (sah) (Entered: 07/01/2002)

1455 TRANSCRIPT INFORMATION FORM filed re: [1451−1] appeal; transcript of 5/22/02 hearing requested; Court Reporter: Paul Spangler. USCA # 02−13499−D (dlg) (Entered: 07/03/2002)

1456 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson for 14 day extension of time to respond to defendant's motion to modify the class definition (bls) (Entered: 07/05/2002)

1457 ORDER granting [1456−1] motion for 14 day extension of time to respond to defendant's motion to modify the class definition, response to motion set to 7/25/02 for [1449−1] motion to modify the class definition ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 07/09/2002)

1458 COURT REPORTER ACKNOWLEDGMENT by Paul Spangler re: [1451−1] appeal; the requested transcript for motion hearing held on 5/22/02 was previously filed on 6/25/02; Certificate of readiness due: 7/24/02. USCA # 02−13499−D (crs) Modified on 07/16/2002 (Entered: 07/15/2002)

1459 MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Martin Von Holden for 30 day enlargement of time to continue negotiations concerning the monitor referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (bls) (Entered: 07/22/2002)

ENDORSED ORDER granting [1459−1] motion for 30 day enlargement of time to continue negotiations concerning the monitor ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 07/25/2002)

1460 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson for 14 day extension of time up to and including 8/8/02 to respond to defendant's motion to modify the class definition (bls) (Entered: 07/25/2002)

1461 SECOND AMENDED MOTION amending [1460−1] motion (second amended) for 60 day extension of time to respond to defendants' motion to modify the class definition by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson (ag) (Entered: 07/26/2002)

ENDORSED ORDER granting [1460−1] motion for 14 day extension of time up to and including 8/8/02 to respond to defendant's motion to modify the class definition, response to motion set to 8/8/02 for [1449−1] motion to modify the class definition by defendants ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 07/29/2002)

1462 NOTICE by USA of change of address for counsel (bls) (Entered: 07/30/2002)

1463

ORDER granting in part, denying in part [1351−1] motion for award of attorney's fees and expenses against the United States. Defendants' motion for attorney's fees and expert witness fees is denied. Defendants' are awarded a total of $351,134,45. Defendants are directed to submit to this Court an itemized amount of fees for their experts at the rate of $40.00 per day. The Court will supplement the award of costs in that amount. ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 07/31/2002)

ENDORSED ORDER granting [1461−1] second amended motion for 60 day extension of time to respond to defendants' motion to modify the class definition; response to motion set to 9/8/02 for [1449−1] motion to modify the class definition

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 135 of 146

08/22/2002 08/23/2002 08/23/2002 08/26/2002 08/30/2002 09/05/2002 09/09/2002 09/10/2002 09/12/2002
09/23/2002 10/10/2002 10/10/2002 10/10/2002 10/15/2002
10/18/2002 10/22/2002

by intervenor−defendant. (Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew), ctc (ag) (Entered: 08/06/2002)

1464 CERTIFICATE of readiness sent to USCA re: [1451−1] appeal (ROA consists of: Volume pleadings: 1; Volume transcripts: 2); USCA# 02−13499D ctc (sah) (Entered: 08/22/2002)

1465 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Robert Williams, Gregory L. Coler, Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Dick Bradley, Martin Von Holden re: [1463−1] order. Filing fee $ 105.00; Receipt # T17539. ctc (dlg) Modified on 08/23/2002 (Entered: 08/23/2002)

TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of certified copies of notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable, re: [1465−1] appeal. Transcript information form sent. Civil Appeal Statement sent. (dlg) (Entered: 08/23/2002)

1466 AMENDED MOTION amending [1449−1] motion to modify the class definition by Fl Dept Of Health/re, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Martin Von Holden (rjc) (Entered: 08/27/2002)

NOTICE assigning 11th Circuit case number re: [1465−1] appeal; initial appeal package received on 8/27/02; USCA case #: 02−14670D (sah) (Entered: 08/30/2002)

1467 STATUS REPORT by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Martin Von Holden (bls) (Entered: 09/06/2002)

1468 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson for 30 day extension of time up to and including 10/8/02 to respond to defendants' amended motion to modify the class definition (bls) (Entered: 09/10/2002)

1469 NOTICE OF HEARING: set status conference for 10:00 a.m. on 9/23/02 scheduled for Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ( Signed by Deputy Clerk ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 09/11/2002)

ENDORSED ORDER granting [1468−1] motion for 30 day extension of time up to and including 10/8/02 to respond to defendants' amended motion to modify the class definition, response to motion set to 10/8/02 for [1466−1] amended motion to modify the class definition ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 09/13/2002)

1470 STATUS CONFERENCE held on 9/23/02 before Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III. Tape: 113/462−1192. (bls) (Entered: 09/24/2002)

1471 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson in opposition to [1466−1] amended motion to modify the class definition (bls) (Entered: 10/11/2002)

1472 NOTICE OF HEARING: Motion hearing set for 9:30 a.m. on December 17−18, 2002 for [1416−1] request for guidance. Scheduled for Magistrate Thomas B. McCoun III ( Signed by Deputy Clerk ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 10/11/2002)

1473 REQUEST by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson for status conference on monitoring (bls) (Entered: 10/11/2002)

1474

AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING: Motion hearing on Motion and supplemental motion to remove the monitor (docs. 1326, 1380) Scheduled for December 17−18, 2002 at 9:30 am before Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (jlh) Modified on 10/17/2002 (Entered: 10/16/2002)

MOTION referred: [1473−1] motion for status conference on monitoring referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III per District Judge Law Clerk (bls) (Entered: 10/18/2002)

1475 ORDER denying [1473−1] motion for status conference on monitoring ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 10/23/2002)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 136 of 146

10/28/2002 10/28/2002 10/30/2002 11/04/2002 11/04/2002
11/08/2002
11/12/2002
11/15/2002 11/15/2002 11/20/2002 11/20/2002 11/27/2002 12/02/2002 12/03/2002 12/04/2002 12/04/2002

1476 TRANSCRIPT of status conference held on 7/21/02 before Judge McCoun. Transcript filed separately. (bls) (Entered: 10/28/2002)

1477 TRANSCRIPT of status conference held on 9/23/02 before Judge McCoun. Transcript filed separately. (bls) (Entered: 10/28/2002)

REQUEST by USCA to forward record on appeal re: [1451−1] appeal; USCA # 02−13499DD (sah) (Entered: 10/31/2002)

1478 CERTIFICATE of readiness sent to USCA re: [1465−1] appeal, [1451−1] appeal (ROA consists of: Volume pleadings: 2; Volume transcripts: 3; Volume exhibits: 87 [61 original pleadings, 26 documentary]) USCA# 02−14670DD &02−13499DD ctc (sah) (Entered: 11/04/2002)

RECORD ON APPEAL sent to USCA re: [1465−1] appeal, [1451−1] appeal (ROA consists of: Certified copy of indexed district court docket sheet, Volume pleadings: 2; Volume transcripts: 3; Volume exhibits: 87 [61 original pleadings, 26 documentary]); USCA# 02−14670DD &02−13499DD ctc (sah) (Entered: 11/04/2002)

1479

SECOND AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING: set evidentiary hearing as to 1326 motion to remove the monitor and 1380 supplemental motion to remove the interim monitor for 9:30 a.m. on 12/17/02 scheduled for Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III , set evidentiary hearing as to 1326 motion to remove the monitor and 1380 supplemental motion to remove the interim monitor for 9:30 a.m. on 12/18/02 ( Signed by Deputy Clerk ) ctc (bls) Modified on 11/13/2002 (Entered: 11/12/2002)

1480

THIRD AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING: set evidentiary hearing for 9:30 a.m. on 12/19/02 as to 1326 motion to remove the monitor and 1380 supplemental motion to remove the interim monitor scheduled for Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III , set evidentiary hearing for 9:30 a.m. on 12/20/02 as to 1326 motion to remove the monitor and 1380 supplemental motion to remove the interim monitor scheduled for Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 11/13/2002)

ACKNOWLEDGMENT by USCA of receiving certificate of readiness on 11/07/02 re: [1465−1] appeal, [1451−1] appeal; USCA # 02−14670DD &02−13499D (sah) (Entered: 11/18/2002)

ACKNOWLEDGMENT by USCA of receiving record on appeal on 11/07/02 re: [1465−1] appeal, [1451−1] appeal; USCA # 02−14670DD &02−13499DD (sah) (Entered: 11/18/2002)

1481 NOTICE of withdrawal of motion to remove monitor and supplemental motion to remove monitor by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Martin Von Holden (bls) (Entered: 11/21/2002)

1482 MOTION by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Martin Von Holden with memorandum in support to modify order of 5/17/90 , for evidentiary hearing to demonstrate self−monitoring program (bls) (Entered: 11/21/2002)

1483 NOTICE of filing monitoring reports by Gerald Regier. (ag) (Entered: 11/29/2002)

1484 ORDER striking [1449−1] motion to modify the class definition ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 12/02/2002)

1485 ORDER: set evidentiary hearing for 10:00 a.m. on 12/19/02 as to [1482−1] motion to modify order of 5/1790; scheduled for Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 12/04/2002)

1486 ORDER [1482−1] motion to modify order of 5/17/90 referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III, [1482−2] motion for evidentiary hearing to demonstrate self−monitoring program referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 12/05/2002)

1487 MOTION by Office of Monitor for approval of proposed budget for 1/1/03 through 6/30/03 (bls) (Entered: 12/05/2002)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 137 of 146

12/05/2002 12/05/2002
12/10/2002 12/11/2002
12/12/2002 12/19/2002 12/19/2002 12/19/2002
12/30/2002 01/02/2003 01/08/2003
01/09/2003 01/15/2003 01/15/2003 01/15/2003 01/16/2003 01/24/2003

MOTION referred: [1487−1] motion for approval of proposed budget for 1/1/03 through 6/30/03 referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III per District Judge Law Clerk (bls) (Entered: 12/05/2002)

1488 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to extend time up to and including 12/09/02 to respond to motion to modify order of 05/17/90 referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. III (jab) (Entered: 12/06/2002)

ENDORSED ORDER granting [1488−1] motion to extend time up to and including 12/09/02 to respond to motion to modify order of 05/17/90 ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 12/11/2002)

1489 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson in opposition to [1482−1] motion to modify order of 5/17/90, [1482−2] motion for evidentiary hearing to demonstrate self−monitoring program. (jab) (Entered: 12/12/2002)

1490 NOTICE OF HEARING: set telephone status conference for 10:00 a.m. on 12/19/02 scheduled for Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ( Signed by Deputy Clerk ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 12/13/2002)

1491 TELEPHONE STATUS CONFERENCE held on 12/19/02 before Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III. Tape: 166/1889−2642. (bls) (Entered: 12/19/2002)

Copy of document number 1484 addressed to Deval L. Patrick returned: moved, not forwardable, addressee unknown. (bls) (Entered: 12/19/2002)

1492

NOTICE OF HEARING: Motion hearing set for 10:00 a.m. on 1/8/03 for [1482−1] motion to modify order of 5/17/90; set for 10:00 a.m. on 1/8/03 for [1482−2] motion for evidentiary hearing to demonstrate self−monitoring program; Scheduled for Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ( Signed by Deputy Clerk ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 12/20/2002)

Copy of document number 1486 addressed to Deval Patrick returned: moved, not forwardable. (bls) (Entered: 12/30/2002)

1493 NOTICE of filing summary chart regarding defendant's motion to modify monitor's order of appointment (5/17/90) by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson (bls) (Entered: 01/03/2003)

1494 MOTION HEARING held on 1/8/03 re: [1482−1] motion to modify order of 5/17/90, [1482−2] motion for evidentiary hearing to demonstrate self−monitoring program before Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III. Tape: 3/630−end and 4/821−end. (bls) (Entered: 01/08/2003)

1495 ORDER deferring [1487−1] motion for approval of proposed budget for 1/1/03 through 6/30/03 ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 01/10/2003)

1496 NOTICE by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Martin Von Holden of change of address for counsel (Thomas B. York) (bls) (Entered: 01/16/2003)

1497 EXHIBIT LIST as to motion hearing held 1/8/03 by defendant Robert Williams, defendant Florida Department of Health, defendant G. Pierce Wood Memorial, defendant Martin Von Holden (bls) (Entered: 01/16/2003)

1498 ORDER denying [1466−1] amended motion to modify the class definition ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 01/16/2003)

1499 NOTICE of exhibits placed in the exhibit room (1 envelope) (jlh) (Entered: 01/16/2003)

1500 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson with memorandum in support for reconsideration of [1498−1] order (bls) (Entered: 01/27/2003)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 138 of 146

01/27/2003 01/27/2003 01/29/2003
01/31/2003 02/03/2003
02/05/2003 02/07/2003 02/24/2003
02/26/2003
03/04/2003
03/07/2003
03/07/2003
03/17/2003 03/28/2003 04/03/2003 04/03/2003 04/03/2003

Copy of documents 1495 and 1498 addressed to Deval Patrick returned: moved, not forwardable. (bls) (Entered: 01/28/2003)
1501 APPLICATION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson for attorney's fees for the period 9/1/02 to 10/31/02 , for costs for the period 9/1/02 to 10/31/02 (bls) (Entered: 01/28/2003)
MOTIONS referred: [1501−1] motion for attorney's fees for the period 9/1/02 to 10/31/02 referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III; [1501−2] motion for costs for the period 9/1/02 to 10/31/02 referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (bls) (Entered: 01/29/2003)
1502 ORDER deferring [1482−1] motion to modify order of 5/17/90; granting [1482−2] motion for evidentiary hearing to demonstrate self−monitoring program ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 02/03/2003)
1503 RESPONSE by Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Martin Von Holden to [1501−1] motion for attorney's fees for the period 9/1/02 to 10/31/02, [1501−2] motion for costs for the period 9/1/02 to 10/31/02 (bls) (Entered: 02/04/2003)
1504 NOTICE OF HEARING: Motion hearing set for 10:00 a.m. on 4/2/03 for [1482−1] motion to modify order of 5/17/90. Scheduled for Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ( Signed by Deputy Clerk ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 02/06/2003)
1505 RESPONSE by Gerald Regier to [1500−1] motion for reconsideration of [1498−1] order (bls) (Entered: 02/10/2003)
1506 MOTION by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson with memorandum in support to shorten time to produce documents , for expedited consideration referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (bls) (Entered: 02/25/2003)
1507 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Martin Von Holden to [1506−1] motion to shorten time to produce documents, [1506−2] motion for expedited consideration (bls) (Entered: 02/27/2003)
1508 NOTICE OF HEARING: Motion hearing set for 9:30 a.m. on 3/7/03 for [1506−1] motion to shorten time to produce documents; set for 9:30 a.m. on 3/7/03 for [1506−2] motion for expedited consideration. Scheduled for Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ( Signed by Deputy Clerk ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 03/05/2003)
1509 MOTION HEARING held on 3/7/03 re: [1506−1] motion to shorten time to produce documents, [1506−2] motion for expedited consideration before Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III. Tape: 44/2993−end and 45/1−90. (bls) (Entered: 03/10/2003)
1510 ORDER granting in part, denying in part [1506−1] motion to shorten time to produce documents; granting in part, denying in part [1506−2] motion for expedited consideration ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 03/10/2003)
Copy of document number 1508 addressed to Deval L. Patrick returned; moved, not forwardable. (bls) (Entered: 03/18/2003)
TRANSMITTAL to USCA re: [1451−1] appeal forwarding USCA response to defendant's appellant's motion to extend oral argument time or to sever these cases; USCA # 02−13499−D (sah) (Entered: 03/28/2003)
1511 MOTION HEARING held on 4/2/03 re: [1482−1] motion to modify order of 5/17/90 before Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III. Tape: 53/3667−57/2360. (bls) Modified on 04/04/2003 (Entered: 04/03/2003)
1512 MOTION HEARING EXHIBIT LIST by notice only Office of Monitor (bls) (Entered: 04/03/2003)
1513 MOTION HEARING EXHIBIT LIST by plaintiff Daniel Fennell, plaintiff Sandra Guinn, plaintiff Gail Bjerkenes, plaintiff Lloyd Koger, plaintiff Miller Frank

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 139 of 146

04/03/2003 04/10/2003 04/11/2003 04/22/2003 05/05/2003 05/08/2003 05/19/2003 05/19/2003
06/04/2003 07/01/2003
07/02/2003
07/10/2003
07/17/2003 08/13/2003 08/15/2003 08/28/2003 09/05/2003

Johnson (bls) Modified on 04/03/2003 (Entered: 04/03/2003)
1514 EXHIBIT LIST by defendant Robert Williams, defendant Florida Department Of Health, defendant G. Pierce Wood Memorial, defendant Martin Von Holden (bls) (Entered: 04/03/2003)
1515 NOTICE of exhibits placed in the exhibit room 4/9/03 (evidentiary hearing − 3 envelopes) (jlh) (Entered: 04/10/2003)
1516 ORDER denying [1500−1] motion for reconsideration of [1498−1] order ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 04/11/2003)
Copy of document number 1516 addressed to Deval L. Patrick returned; moved not forwardable. (bls) (Entered: 04/22/2003)
1517 NOTICE of filing supplemental report by Office of Monitor (bls) (Entered: 05/06/2003)
1518 TRANSCRIPT of motion hearing re: [1482−1] motion to modify order of 5/17/90 held on 4/2/03 before Judge McCoun. Transcript filed separately. (bls) (Entered: 05/09/2003)
1519 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Martin Von Holden to [1517−1] notice of filing supplemental report on Dr. Roger's survey process (bls) (Entered: 05/20/2003)
1520 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson in opposition to [1482−1] motion to modify order of 5/17/90, [1482−2] motion for evidentiary hearing to demonstrate self−monitoring program (bls) (Entered: 05/20/2003)
1521 NOTICE of filing second supplemental report by Office of Monitor (bls) (Entered: 06/05/2003)
1522 ORDER: The parties and the Monitor are hereby noticed for further hearing on 1482 motion to modify order of 5/17/90 and request for hearing for 7/10/03 at 2:00 p.m. ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 07/01/2003)
1523 ORDER deferring [1501−1] motion for attorney's fees for the period 9/1/02 to 10/31/02; deferring [1501−2] motion for costs for the period 9/1/02 to 10/31/02 ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 07/02/2003)
1524 MOTION HEARING held on 7/10/03 re: [1482−1] motion to modify order of 5/17/90, [1482−2] motion for evidentiary hearing to demonstrate self−monitoring program before Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III. Digitally recorded. (bls) (Entered: 07/11/2003)
1525 NOTICE of filing summary exit criteria issues for the court by Office of Monitor (bls) (Entered: 07/18/2003)
1526 MOTION by Office of Monitor to extend time to submit memorandum of understanding referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (bls) (Entered: 08/14/2003)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [1526−1] joint motion to extend time to submit memorandum of understanding ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 08/18/2003)
Copy of document number 1526 addressed to James Williams, Jr. returned with note from secretary indicating that parcel was received in error. (bls) (Entered: 08/29/2003)
Copy of document number 1526 addressed to Deval Patrick, Elaine Lubin and Laurie Weinstein returned: moved, not forwardable. (bls) Modified on 09/08/2003 (Entered: 09/08/2003)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 140 of 146

09/15/2003 09/17/2003 09/23/2003 09/26/2003 10/29/2003 10/31/2003 11/17/2003 11/21/2003 11/24/2003 11/26/2003
11/28/2003
12/01/2003 12/18/2003 12/19/2003
12/29/2003 12/29/2003 01/05/2004

1527 JOINT MOTION by Office of Monitor, Dept. of Children to extend time to submit memorandum of understanding (bls) (Entered: 09/16/2003)

MOTION referred: [1527−1] joint motion to extend time to submit memorandum of understanding referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (bls) (Entered: 09/17/2003)

1528 ORDER granting [1527−1] joint motion to extend time to submit memorandum of understanding ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 09/24/2003)

1529 TRANSCRIPT of motion hearing held on 7/10/03 before Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III re: [1465−1] appeal Court Reporter: Carol Jacobs; Transcript filed separately. USCA # 02−13499−D (bls) (Entered: 09/29/2003)

1530 THIRD MOTION by Office of Monitor (third) to extend time to submit memorandum of understanding referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (bls) (Entered: 10/29/2003)

1531 ORDER granting [1530−1] third motion to extend time to submit memorandum of understanding ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 10/31/2003)

1532 MOTION by Office of Monitor for status conference to resolve single language dispute and approve memorandum of agreement (filed separately) (bls) Modified on 11/17/2003 (Entered: 11/17/2003)

1533 NOTICE OF HEARING: set status conference for 11:00 a.m. on 12/18/03 scheduled for Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ( Signed by Deputy Clerk ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 11/21/2003)

1534 MOTION by Gerald Regier for status conference to resolve single language dispute and approve memorandum of agreement referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (bls) (Entered: 11/25/2003)

1535

NOTICE OF HEARING: Motion hearing set for 11:00 a.m. on 12/18/03 for [1534−1] motion for status conference to resolve single language dispute and approve memorandum of agreement, set for 11:00 a.m. on 12/18/03 for [1532−1] motion for status conference to resolve single language dispute and approve memorandum of agreement Scheduled for Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ( Signed by Deputy Clerk ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 11/28/2003)

1536 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson to [1534−1] motion for status conference to resolve single language dispute and approve memorandum of agreement (bls) (Entered: 12/01/2003)

MOTION(S) referred: [1532−1] motion for status conference to resolve single language dispute and approve memorandum of agreement referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III per chambers (24/JD) (jab) (Entered: 12/01/2003)

1537 STATUS CONFERENCE held on 12/18/03 before Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III. Digitally recorded. (bls) (Entered: 12/19/2003)

1538

ORDER granting in part, denying in part [1534−1] motion for status conference to resolve single language dispute and approve memorandum of agreement, granting in part, denying in part [1532−1] motion for status conference to resolve single language dispute and approve memorandum of agreement ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 12/19/2003)

1539 MOTION by Office of Monitor for ruling on 2 remaining exit criteria issues (ch) (Entered: 12/30/2003)

RETURNED MAIL: Copy of [1538−1] Order mailed to Martha J. Cook returned marked forwarding time expired; re−mailed to 3404 Shadowood Dr., Valrico, FL 33594 (ch) (Entered: 12/30/2003)

MOTION referred: [1539−1] motion for ruling on 2 remaining exit criteria issues referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (bls) (Entered: 01/05/2004)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 141 of 146

01/07/2004 01/12/2004 01/21/2004 01/27/2004 01/27/2004 02/03/2004 02/04/2004 02/13/2004
02/23/2004 02/23/2004 02/23/2004 02/24/2004 03/03/2004 03/18/2004 03/19/2004 05/10/2004 05/13/2004 05/14/2004 07/02/2004 08/11/2005

1540 RESPONSE by Gerald Regier to [1539−1] motion for ruling on 2 remaining exit criteria issues (bls) (Entered: 01/07/2004)
1541 RESPONSE by Daniel Fennell, et al. (plaintiffs) to [1539−1] motion for ruling on 2 remaining exit criteria issues (bls) (Entered: 01/12/2004)
1542 ORDER deferring [1539−1] motion for ruling on 2 remaining exit criteria issues; granting [1540−1] motion response ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 01/22/2004)
1543 USCA DECISION (certified copy) [1451−1] appeal, [1465−1] appeal affirming judgment/order Mandate date: 1/23/04 USCA EOD: 10/29/03. (Opinion attached) USCA # 02−13499−DD, USCA # 02−14670−DD (crs) (Entered: 01/27/2004)
RECORD on appeal returned from USCA re: (ROA consists of: Volume pleadings: 2; Volume transcripts: 3;) USCA# 02−13499−DD, 02−14670−DD (NOTE: Exhibits will be returned from USCA at a later date.) (crs) (Entered: 01/27/2004)
1544 MEMORANDUM ON REMAINING EXIT CRITERIA ISSUES by Daniel Fennell, et al. (plaintiffs) pursuant to [1542−1] order (bls) (Entered: 02/04/2004)
1545 BRIEF ON ISSUES CONCERNING EXIT CRETERIA 1 AND 5 by Dept. of Children Families pursuant to [1542−1] order (bls) (Entered: 02/05/2004)
1546 ORDER: Within 20 days from the date of this order, plaintiffs are directed to supplement, if appropriate, their application for attorneys' fees to include all work performed on appeal. ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 02/17/2004)
1547 NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT of plaintiffs' application for attorneys' fees and costs for the period 9/1/02 to 10/31/02 filed by Daniel Fennell, Sandra Guinn, Gail Bjerkenes, Lloyd Koger, Miller Frank Johnson (bls) (Entered: 02/24/2004)
1548 RESPONSE by Robert Williams, Florida Department of Health, G. Pierce Wood Memorial, Martin Von Holden to [1546−1] order (bls) (Entered: 02/24/2004)
PARTIAL RECORD on appeal returned from USCA re: (ROA consists of: Volume pleadings: 40; Volume exhibits: 16;) USCA# 02−14670−DD, 02−13499−DD (crs) (Entered: 02/24/2004)
PARTIAL RECORD on appeal returned from USCA re: (ROA consists of: Volume pleadings: 21; Volume exhibits: 10;) USCA# 02−13499−DD, 02−14670−DD (crs) (Entered: 02/24/2004)
1549 NOTICE OF HEARING: set hearing as to two remaining exit criteria for 10:30 a.m. on 3/18/04 scheduled for Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 03/04/2004)
1550 STATUS CONFERENCE held on 3/18/04 before Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III. Digitally recorded. (bls) (Entered: 03/19/2004)
1551 ORDER as to two remaining exit criteria issues. ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 03/22/2004)
1552 MOTION by Office of Monitor for approval of proposed budget for 7/1/04 through 6/30/05 referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (bls) (Entered: 05/10/2004)
1553 NOTICE of filing exhibits to 1552 motion for approval of proposed budget by Office of Monitor (bls) (Entered: 05/14/2004)
1554 ORDER granting [1552−1] motion for approval of proposed budget for 7/1/04 through 6/30/05 ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 05/17/2004)
1555 NOTICE of filing memorandum of agreement by Office of Monitor (bls) (Entered: 07/06/2004)
1556 RETURN OF EXHIBITS TO: GOVERNMENT, DEFENDANT MURPHY, REIGER AND MONITOR ONLYThe records in this case indicate that this case

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 142 of 146

08/15/2005 09/02/2005 01/10/2006 08/10/2006 08/31/2006 09/13/2006 03/29/2007 10/02/2007 10/04/2007 10/15/2007 08/13/2008
08/26/2008
08/26/2008
08/28/2008
08/28/2008 09/18/2008

was disposed of more than thirty (30) days ago. The records also indicate that the Clerk's Office is in possession of various exhibits used during the proceedings.Pursuant to Local Rule 5.04, you are notified that you have thirty (30) days to contact the Clerk's Office to arrange for the removal of the exhibits from the custody of the Clerk's Office, or the exhibits will be destroyed, as permitted by Local Rule 5.04. (jlh, ) (Entered: 08/11/2005)

1557 MOTION for approval of proposed budget by Office of the Monitor. (jmg) (Entered: 08/16/2005)

1558 ORDER granting 1557 Office of the Monitor's Motion for Approval of Proposed Budget for July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006. Signed by Judge Thomas B. McCoun III on 9/2/2005. (slb) (Entered: 09/02/2005)

1559 CLERK'S certificate of destruction of exhibits and/or exhibit substitutes as to United States of America, Gerald Regier and Monitor. (jlh, ) (Entered: 01/10/2006)

1560 MOTION for approval of proposed budget by Office of the Monitor. (Attachments: # 1)(ejc) (Entered: 08/10/2006)

1561 ORDER granting 1560 motion for approval of proposed 2006/2007 budget. Signed by Judge Thomas B. McCoun III on 8/31/2006. (slb) (Entered: 08/31/2006)

Mail returned as Undeliverable re: 1561 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. Mail was sent to Martha J. Cook. (ejc) (Entered: 09/13/2006)

1562 NOTICE by Miller Frank Johnson Notice of Withdrawal by Robin L. Rosenberg (Rosenberg, Robin) (Entered: 03/29/2007)

1563 First MOTION approval of monitor's 2007−2008 budget by Linda L. Glenn. (Dale, Michael) (Entered: 10/02/2007)

1564 ORDER granting 1563 the Office of the Monitor's Motion for Approval of Proposed Budget for July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2008. Signed by Judge Thomas B. McCoun III on 10/4/2007. (slb) (Entered: 10/04/2007)

Mail returned as Undeliverable "Box Closed" re: 1564 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. Mail was sent to Verlin H. Deerinwater and Robinsue Frohboese. (ejc) (Entered: 10/16/2007)

1565 First MOTION Exit Consent Decree pursuant to compliance with Exit Criteria Dispositive by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Verified 2007 audit scores, # 2 Exhibit Cover page and TOC Monitor's 2nd Draft Report, # 3 Exhibit Monitor's Compliance 2nd Draft Report)(Dunn, Mark) (Entered: 08/13/2008)

1566

RESPONSE in opposition re 1565 First MOTION Exit Consent Decree pursuant to compliance with Exit Criteria Dispositive Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Exit Suncoast Region, Districts 8, 14, &15 From Consent Decree filed by Miller Frank Johnson. (Green, James) Modified on 8/27/2008, NOTE: DOCUMENT TERMINATED, counsel refiled as 1567 Response (EJC). (Entered: 08/26/2008)

1567

RESPONSE in opposition re 1565 First MOTION Exit Consent Decree pursuant to compliance with Exit Criteria Dispositive Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Exit Suncoast Region, Districts 8, 14, &15 From Consent Decree (Refile − Correction) filed by Miller Frank Johnson. (Green, James) (Entered: 08/26/2008)

1568 Unopposed MOTION order approving monitor's budget by Office of the Monitor. (Dale, Michael) Modified on 8/28/2008 (CH). NOTE: MOTION TERMINATED AT ATTORNEY REQUEST: FOGOT TO ATTACH EXHIBITS, NO EM ADDRESS IN SIGNATURE BLOCK, WILL REFILE (Entered: 08/28/2008)

1569 MOTION order approving monitor's proposed budget by Office of the Monitor. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit monitor's proposed budget)(Dale, Michael) (Entered: 08/28/2008)

1570 ORDER granting 1569 the Office of the Monitor's motion for approval of proposed budget for July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 143 of 146

10/31/2008
11/12/2008
11/26/2008 12/11/2008 12/11/2008 01/12/2009 02/06/2009 02/11/2009 02/11/2009 02/12/2009 02/16/2009 02/17/2009
03/18/2009 03/25/2009 04/02/2009

Thomas B. McCoun III on 9/18/2008. (SLB) (Entered: 09/18/2008)

1571

NOTICE OF HEARING: Telephone Status Conference on motion to exit consent decree 1565 set for 11/20/2008 at 10:30 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III. Counsel shall notify chambers (813−301−5550), no less than 24 hours prior to the hearing, of the telephone number at which counsel can be reached in order for the court to initiate the conference call. (SLB) (Entered: 10/31/2008)

1572

NOTICE RESETTING STATUS CONFERENCE: telephone status conference on motion to exit consent decree 1565 scheduled for 11/20/2008 at 10:30 a.m. is RESET to 12/11/2008 at 10:30 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III. Counsel shall notify chambers (813−301−5550), no less than 24 hours prior to the hearing, of the telephone number at which counsel can be reached in order for the court to initiate the conference call. (SLB) (SLB) (Entered: 11/12/2008)

1573 STATUS REPORT 2006−2007 Community Exit Criteria Compliance Report by Office of the Monitor. (Dale, Michael) (Entered: 11/26/2008)

1574 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III: Status Conference held on 12/11/2008. Court Reporter: Kerry Mercade (SRC) (Entered: 12/11/2008)

1575 ORDER Setting Evidentiary Hearing regarding Defendants' motion to exit 1565 for 3/11/2009 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 12 B before Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III on 12/11/2008. (SRC) (Entered: 12/11/2008)

1576 SUPPLEMENT 2006−2007 Community Exit Criteria Compliance Reviews by Office of the Monitor. (Dale, Michael) (Entered: 01/12/2009)

1577 First MOTION to supplement Defendant's Supplemental Motion to Dissolve Injunctions and Memo of Law by George H Sheldon. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit)(Dunn, Mark) (Entered: 02/06/2009)

1578 NOTICE by George H Sheldon of Expert Testimony (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Expert Disclosure, # 2 Exhibit CSM Report Part A, # 3 Exhibit CSM Report Part B)(Dunn, Mark) (Entered: 02/11/2009)

1579 Unopposed MOTION to continue by George H Sheldon. (Dunn, Mark) (Entered: 02/11/2009)

1580 ORDER granting 1579 Defendant's unopposed motion to continue. The evidentiary hearing set for 3/11/2009 is reset to 4/9/2009 at 10:00 a.m. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III on 2/12/2009. (SLB) (Entered: 02/12/2009)

1581 MEMORANDUM in support re 1577 Motion to supplement, 1575 Order Setting Hearing, 1565 Motion for miscellaneous relief Concerning Class Members Who Left Catchment Area or Refused Services filed by George H Sheldon. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Dunn, Mark) (Entered: 02/16/2009)

1582

RESPONSE in opposition re 1565 First MOTION Exit Consent Decree pursuant to compliance with Exit Criteria Dispositive Plaintiff's Supplemental Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Terminate Decree filed by Miller Frank Johnson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1,IMAGE REMOVED; PERSONAL IDENTIFIERS; COUNSEL TO RE−FILE # 2 Exhibit 2)(Green, James) Modified on 3/18/2009 (JLH). (Entered: 02/17/2009)

1583 NOTICE by Miller Frank Johnson re 1582 Response in opposition to motion Plaintiff's Notice of Filing Redacted Exhibit for Docket Entry 1582−2 Filed 2/17/2009 to Supplemental Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Terminate Decree (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Green, James) (Entered: 03/18/2009)

1584 JOINDER in motion by George H Sheldon Joint Request for Monitor to Appear and Stipulation as to Admissibility of Report and Affidavit. (Dunn, Mark) (Entered: 03/25/2009)

1585 ENDORSED ORDER granting the parties' joint request 1584 for the monitor to appear and testify at the evidentiary hearing on 4/9/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III on 4/2/2009. (SLB) (Entered: 04/02/2009)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 144 of 146

04/03/2009 04/03/2009 04/09/2009 04/09/2009
05/01/2009 05/06/2009
05/28/2009 06/01/2009 06/10/2009
06/10/2009
06/15/2009 06/15/2009 06/16/2009 06/29/2009

1586 STIPULATION Joint Request for Judicial Notice by George H Sheldon. (Dunn, Mark) (Entered: 04/03/2009)

1587 STIPULATION Amended Joint Request for Judicial Notice by George H Sheldon. (Dunn, Mark) (Entered: 04/03/2009)

1588 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III: Evidentiary Hearing held on 4/9/2009. Court Reporter: Penny Appleton (Berryhill &Assoc.) (SRC) (Entered: 04/09/2009)

1589

ORDER recessing the hearing on Defendant's motions 1565 1582 . The court requests that the Monitor file a report on the state's recent submission within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. The parties may file supplemental pleadings within ten (10) days of receipt of the Monitors report. The court will reconvene the hearing shortly thereafter. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III on 4/9/2009. (SLB) (Entered: 04/09/2009)

1590 MOTION for Extension of Time to Issue and File report concerning matters raised at 4/9/09 Evidentiary Hearing by Office of the Monitor. (Dale, Michael) Modified text on 5/4/2009 (RFM). (Entered: 05/01/2009)

1591

ENDORSED ORDER granting 1590 Office of the Monitor's Motion for Extension of Time to Issue and File Report Concerning Matters Raised at April 9, 2009, Evidentiary Hearing. The Monitor shall issue and file her report by May 29, 2009, and the parties may file supplemental pleadings within ten (10) days of receipt of the report. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III on 5/6/2009. (SLB) (Entered: 05/06/2009)

1592 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Document by Office of the Monitor. (Dale, Michael) (Entered: 05/28/2009)

1593 ENDORSED ORDER granting 1592 Motion for Extension of Time to Issue and File Report. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III on 6/1/2009. (SRC) (Entered: 06/01/2009)

1594

TRANSCRIPT of Hearing held on 04/09/2009 before Judge Thomas B. McCoun, III. Court Reporter Penny Appleton/Berryhill &Associates,Telephone number 727−725−8749. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER or purchased through the Court Reporter. Redaction Request due 7/1/2009, Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/13/2009, Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/8/2009. (BES) (Entered: 06/12/2009)

1595

NOTICE to counsel of filing of OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may purchase a copy from the court reporter or view the document at the clerk's office public terminal. Court Reporter: Berryhill &Assoc. (BES) (Entered: 06/12/2009)

1596 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically Order Approving Monitor's 2009−2010 Budget by Office of the Monitor. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Dale, Michael) (Entered: 06/15/2009)

1597 STATUS REPORT Report on Status of Class Members by Office of the Monitor. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement, # 2 Supplement)(Dale, Michael) (Entered: 06/15/2009)

1598 ORDER granting 1596 Office of the Monitor's Unopposed Motion for Approval of Proposed Budget for July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III on 6/16/2009. (SLB) (Entered: 06/16/2009)

1599 RESPONSE re 1597 Status Report Plaintiffs' Response to the Monitor's Report on Class Members Who Have Refused Services or Moved From the Catchment Area filed by G. Pierce Wood Memor. (Green, James) (Entered: 06/29/2009)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 145 of 146

06/29/2009 06/29/2009 07/02/2009 07/07/2009 07/28/2009 07/29/2009 08/10/2009 08/10/2009 08/25/2009
08/25/2009
09/01/2009 09/10/2009 09/23/2009
09/25/2009

1600 RESPONSE re 1597 Status Report filed by George H Sheldon. (Dunn, Mark) (Entered: 06/29/2009)

1601 NOTICE of supplemental authority re 1600 Response by George H Sheldon (Attachments: # 1 Main Document Opinion Horne v. Flores)(Dunn, Mark) (Entered: 06/29/2009)

1602 NOTICE OF HEARING: Telephone Conference set for 7/7/2009 at 1:00 p.m. before Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III. Counsel shall notify chambers (813−301−5550) of the telephone number at which counsel can be reached in order for the court to initiate the conference call. (SLB) (Entered: 07/02/2009)

1603 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III: Status Conference held on 7/7/2009. (DIGITAL) (SRC) Modified on 9/18/2009 to reflect correct courtroom. (SRC) (Entered: 07/09/2009)

1604 ORDER directing that any response to the Monitor's 2008 Report be filed within ten (10) days and not exceed ten (10) pages. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III on 7/28/2009. (SLB) (Entered: 07/28/2009)

1605 STATUS REPORT 2008 Community Exit Criteria Compliance Reviews Report of Findings by Office of the Monitor. (Attachments: # 1 SCR Johnson Audit 2008 Results)(Dale, Michael) (Entered: 07/29/2009)

1606 RESPONSE re 1605 Status Report Plaintiffs' Response to the Monitor's 2008 Community Exit Criteria Compliance Reviews Report of Findings Dated July 24, 2009 filed by Miller Frank Johnson. (Green, James) (Entered: 08/10/2009)

1607 RESPONSE re 1605 Status Report Monitor's 2008 Report filed by George H Sheldon. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Exhibit 1 Affidavit of Harry Smith, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2 Excerpt 2008 Protocol)(Dunn, Mark) (Entered: 08/10/2009)

1608

NOTICE OF HEARING: Telephone Conference set for 9/1/2009 at 10:00 a.m. in Tampa Courtroom 12 B before Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III. Counsel shall notify chambers (813−301−5550), no less than 24 hours prior to the hearing, of the telephone number at which they can be reached in order for the court to initiate the conference call. (SLB) (Entered: 08/25/2009)

1609

AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING: the telephone conference previously set for 9/1/2009 at 10:00 a.m. is reset to 9/1/2009 at 11:00 a.m. in Tampa Courtroom 12 B before Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III. Counsel shall notify chambers (813−301−5550), no less than 24 hours prior to the hearing, of the telephone number at which they can be reached in order for the court to initiate the conference call. (SLB) (Entered: 08/25/2009)(SLB) (Entered: 08/25/2009)

1610 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III: Status Conference held on 9/1/2009. (DIGITAL) (SRC) (Entered: 09/02/2009)

1611 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1577 Defendant's Supplemental Motion to Exit Consent Decree and 1565 Defendant's Dispositive Motion to Exit Consent Decree. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III on 9/10/2009. (SLB) (Entered: 09/10/2009)

1612

RESPONSE re 1611 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1577 First MOTION to supplement Defendant's Supplemental Motion to Dissolve Injunctions and Memo of Law filed by George H Sheldon, 1565 First MOTION Exit Consent Decree pursuant to compliance with Exit Criteria D Plaintiffs' Response to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation on Defendant's Motion to Exit Consent Decree filed by Miller Frank Johnson. (Green, James) (Entered: 09/23/2009)

1613

RESPONSE re 1611 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1577 First MOTION to supplement Defendant's Supplemental Motion to Dissolve Injunctions and Memo of Law filed by George H Sheldon, 1565 First MOTION Exit Consent Decree pursuant to compliance with Exit Criteria D Defendant's filed by George H Sheldon. (Dunn, Mark) (Entered: 09/25/2009)

Case: 8:87-cv-00369-SCB As of: 07/08/2014 02:02 PM EDT 146 of 146

09/30/2009 10/20/2009 11/30/2009 11/30/2009 01/25/2010 01/26/2010 02/01/2010 02/05/2010
02/08/2010 02/09/2010 02/11/2010
02/19/2010
03/03/2011

1614 ORDER adopting 1611 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1577 Supplemental MOTION to Exit Consent Decree, 1565 First MOTION to Exit Consent Decree. Signed by Judge Susan C Bucklew on 9/30/2009. (JD) (Entered: 09/30/2009)

1615 STIPULATION regarding exit criteria by Gail Bjerkenes, Sandra Guinn, Daniel Fennell, Robert Williams, Miller Frank Johnson, Dick Bradley, G. Pierce Wood Memor, Fl Dept Of Health/re, Office of the Monitor, Lloyd Koger. (JNB) (Entered: 10/20/2009)

1616 COURT'S EXHIBIT LIST regarding hearing conducted 4/9/2009 before Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III. (SRC) (Entered: 11/30/2009)

1617 NOTICE of exhibits placed in the exhibit room (evidentiary hearing − 1 envelope) (JLH) (Entered: 12/02/2009)

1618 Third MOTION for relief from judgment by George H Sheldon. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 2009 Suncoast Compliance Report, # 2 Exhibit 2009 District 8 Compliance Report)(Dunn, Mark) (Entered: 01/25/2010)

1619 NOTICE by George H Sheldon Correct Address and Proper Service of Doc. 1618 on Stephen F. Hanlon (Dunn, Mark) (Entered: 01/26/2010)

1620 NOTICE of Hearing on 1618 MOTION to exit and terminate consent decree: Motion Hearing set for 2/11/2010 at 09:00 AM in Tampa Courtroom 14 A before Judge Susan C Bucklew. (JD) (Entered: 02/01/2010)

1621

ENDORSED ORDER that Plaintiff's counsel, Jim Green, will be appearing by phone for the 2/11/10 hearing. If other counsel would like to appear by phone for that hearing, such counsel must file a motion by 2/8/10 that indicates the the telephone number that he or she can be called at in order to be telephonically connected into the hearing. Signed by Judge Susan C Bucklew on 2/5/2010. (JD) (Entered: 02/05/2010)

1622 MOTION to Appear Telephonically as to Steven Schwartz, Esq. by Miller Frank Johnson. (Green, James) (Entered: 02/08/2010)

1623 ENDORSED ORDER granting 1622 Motion to Appear Telephonically. Signed by Judge Susan C Bucklew on 2/9/2010. (JD) (Entered: 02/09/2010)

1624

Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Susan C Bucklew: Motion Hearing held on 2/11/2010 re 1618 Third MOTION for relief from judgment filed by George H Sheldon. Mr. Dunn is to prepare a proposed order and e−mail it to the chambers e−mail address. Court Reporter: Linda Starr (APV) . Minutes entry corrected to reflect that Ms Curran and not Mr Dunn agreed that the purpose of the consent decree has been achieved. Modified on 2/12/2010 (APV). (Entered: 02/11/2010)

1625

ORDER granting 1618 Motion to Exit Suncoast Region and District 8 and Terminate Consent Decree. The Court hereby dissolves all injunctions, terminates the Consent Decree, relinquishes jurisdiction over this cause, and orders the Clerk to close the case. Signed by Judge Susan C Bucklew on 2/19/2010. (JD) (Entered: 02/19/2010)

1626 CLERK'S certificate of destruction of COURT'S exhibits and/or exhibit substitutes (JLH) (Entered: 03/03/2011)

 
 348 F.3d 1334 (2003)
Miller Frank JOHNSON, Lloyd Koger, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, United States of America, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee, v. State of FLORIDA, et al., Intervenor-Defendants,
Kathleen Kearney, Secretary, Department of Children and Families, Intervenor-DefendantAppellant.
Miller Frank Johnson, Lloyd Koger, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, United States of America, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
Dick Bradley, G. Pierce Wood Memor, et al., Defendants-Appellants, State of Florida, Jeb Bush, Governor of the State of Florida, et al., Intervenor-Defendants-
Appellants.
Nos. 02-13499, 02-14670.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Decided October 29, 2003.
13356 *1335 *1336 Jason Vail, Tallahassee, FL, Thomas B. York, Dilworth Paxson, LLP, Harrisburg, PA, Steven B. Goodman, Dilworth Paxson, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellants.
James K. Green, James K. Green, P.A., West Palm Beach, FL, Lisa Wilson Edwards, Mark L. Gross, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civ. Rights Div., Washington, DC, Robin Lynn Rosenberg, Holland & Knight, LLP, Saint Petersburg, FL, Steven J. Schwartz, Center for Republic Representation, Northampton, MA, for Appellees.
Before ANDERSON and COX, Circuit Judges, and NANGLE[*], District Judge.
ANDERSON, Circuit Judge:
These consolidated cases arise out of litigation against the State of Florida ("the State") over conditions at a former state-run mental health facility, G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital ("GPW"), which closed in February 2002. In the first case, # 02-13499 ("the Consent Decree case"), the State[1] challenges the district court's refusal to lift all conditions of a Consent Decree under which GPW was subject to court-supervised monitoring. The Consent Decree was entered to settle litigation between a plaintiff class of patients and the State regarding conditions of confinement, treatment and release at the hospital. In the second case, # 02-14670 ("the attorney fee case"), the State challenges the district court's order refusing to award attorneys' fees incurred in defending claims brought by the Justice Department as Intervenor on behalf of the patients. The State won on all counts at a bench trial, and claims it is statutorily entitled to attorneys' fees as the prevailing party.
I. BACKGROUND
Until its closure, GPW was a state-run hospital for the mentally ill, at which approximately 85 percent of the 1337 patients *1337 were involuntarily committed by court order under a Florida statute known as the "Baker Act." A
group of patients at GPW brought a class action in the Middle District of Florida in November 1987, alleging that the State was violating their constitutional rights by providing substandard care and housing, and by failing to release them when they were "discharge ready." Specifically, the complaint alleged that the State: (1) violated their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to discharge them into less restrictive settings; (2) denied them procedural due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment by arbitrarily revoking privileges without formal standards and with no opportunity for challenge; (3) abridged their First, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment

rights by arbitrarily restricting visitation privileges; (4) infringed their right to counsel in violation of the First, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments by failing to provide legal assistance or an adequate law library; and (5) violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights by providing inadequate medical staffing, recreation, vocational training, security and nutrition.
The court certified a class of "all persons who are now or will in the future be committed" to GPW, and a subclass of present and future patients "who have been determined by their treatment team to be `discharge ready' for a period of 15 days or longer, but who have not been discharged." Significantly, the court later expanded the class to include "former patients at GPW even after they are discharged into community treatment facilities."
In June 1989, the parties entered into a Consent Decree, under which the State agreed to make various changes in operations at GPW. A preamble to the decree, entitled "Scope of Agreement," stated that the decree was binding upon "[d]efendants and their successors, agents, servants and employees." The only portion of the order at issue is the district court's refusal to terminate court supervision as it relates to three paragraphs of the Consent Decree: ¶¶ 2, 35, and 37. In Paragraph 2, the State agreed to begin assigning clients to living units and programs according to their individual functional levels and therapeutic needs. The State further agreed that:
As community facilities become available ... this shall include moving residents from (1) more to less structured living; (2) larger to small living facilities; (3) group to individual residence; (4) segregated from the community to integrated into community living; (5) dependent to independent living, according to their needs and as more specifically set forth in the Comprehensive Services Plan for the Alcohol and Mental Health Program ... attached hereto and incorporated by reference.
Id. at ¶ 2. Paragraph 35 requires the parties to agree on the selection of a monitor to oversee compliance with the agreement, and Paragraph 37, which is similar to Paragraph 2, deals with the state's obligation to evaluate when patients are "discharge ready" and, subject to the availability of funding, to place them in appropriate community settings.
The decree expressly provided that it was subject to court approval, and that "[c]ompliance/non-compliance with this Agreement shall be determined by the Court." In other words, the parties clearly contemplated a continuing oversight role for the court. The Consent Decree was filed with the district court as a settlement agreement. After conducting a fairness hearing, the court approved the decree by order of August 14, 1989, reserving jurisdiction to oversee its implementation.
1338 *1338 Because the State's obligations under the decree were somewhat general, the parties agreed after several years of oversight by the monitor to develop criteria by which the state's compliance could be measured. Accordingly, they entered into two additional agreements (the "Exit Criteria"). There were two sets of Exit Criteria 0907 one governing the provision of legal services and one regarding the adequacy and timeliness of placement in community treatment0907but only the latter is at issue here. The parties reduced their agreement to an "Exit Criteria Stipulation," which they agreed to submit to court approval. In the stipulation, the parties agreed that the Exit Criteria would be "the sole and exclusive method for assessing Defendants' performance and determining completion of their remaining obligations and the termination under the consent decree except as otherwise accepted by the parties and approved by the Monitors and the Court." Among other specifications, the stipulation provided that reports of the monitor evaluating the State's compliance with the Exit Criteria would be appealable to the district court and subject to de novo judicial review. Notably, the Exit Criteria purported in several instances to modify obligations imposed by the Consent Decree.[2]
In December 1994, the State moved for the first time to withdraw from the Exit Criteria. The State, evidently having concluded that it entered into an unfavorable bargain, argued that the stipulation exceeded the scope of the case as defined by the Complaint and the Consent Decree. It further argued that the executive branch officials who entered into the Exit Criteria overstepped their authority by purporting to bind legislative policymakers into the future. The motion was summarily rejected and the Exit Criteria remained in force.
In June 1996, the Justice Department moved to intervene in the case on the Plaintiffs' side under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997 et seq. ("CRIPA"). CRIPA empowers the Attorney General to bring or join litigation seeking injunctive relief on behalf of persons confined in state or municipal institutions, if

there is reasonable cause to believe that the confinees are being subjected to "egregious or flagrant conditions which deprive such persons of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States causing such persons to suffer grievous harm, and that such deprivation is pursuant to a pattern or practice (of violations)." See 42 U.S.C. § 1997(a). The DOJ Complaint accused the State of violating the Fourteenth Amendment and the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 et seq., by failing to protect patients from harm, failing to provide the level of care appropriate to meet the patients' liberty interests, and failing to ensure that each patient was placed in the most appropriate setting for his needs.
The State denied all of the DOJ allegations, and the case went to a five-week bench trial during August and September of 2000. At the start of the trial, the State announced that it had decided to close GPW (although the State contends that its intentions were known before the trial). However, because the parties had agreed in the pretrial order to limit the evidence presented at trial to that developed before September 30, 1999, the planned closure was not part of the record at trial. The original class Plaintiffs actively participated in the trial and sought 1339 affirmative relief *1339 beyond that provided under the Consent Decree.
Following the trial, the district court issued an opinion on June 28, 2001, ruling for the State on all counts of the DOJ complaint. The court concluded that as of September 30, 1999, the State was providing a constitutionally adequate level of care under the standard set forth in Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 102 S.Ct. 2452, 73 L.Ed.2d 28 (1982). Youngberg recognized that patients involuntarily committed to state custody enjoy a substantive due process right to "reasonable care and safety, reasonably nonrestrictive confinement conditions, and such training as may be required by these interests." Id. at 324, 102 S.Ct. at 2462. To determine what is a reasonable level of care, courts were instructed only to "make certain that professional judgment in fact was exercised," id. at 321, 102 S.Ct. at 2461, not to second-guess the outcome of that judgment. Applying Youngberg, the district court reviewed each category of services and conditions at GPW and found all of them to comply with accepted standards of professional judgment. As to the particular services at issue here, the court found that "[c]urrent and former GPW patients are provided adequate community mental health services to meet their assessed functional and clinical needs in an integrated setting that is appropriate to those needs." It further found that the State was "providing an appropriate array and intensity of community services," and that "all aspects of the defendants' provision of community services comply with accepted professional standards of care."
As the prevailing party, the State moved for an award of attorney fees and costs against the DOJ pursuant to CRIPA, 42 U.S.C. § 1997c(d). The request was referred to a Magistrate Judge, who recommended granting the petition for $351,139.45 in costs but denying the request for attorneys' fees on the grounds that CRIPA did not mandate an award of fees to prevailing defendants. The district court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and denied attorneys' fees. The State appealed, giving rise to Case No. 02-14670.
On July 20, 2001, the State filed a Supplemental Motion to Terminate Consent Decree, based on the district court's findings after the DOJ trial that the State was providing a constitutionally adequate level of care. Before that motion could be decided, GPW officially closed as of February 11, 2002. The State followed up on February 21, 2002, with a Supplemental Motion to terminate the decree, arguing that closure of GPW mooted any outstanding issues. The district court granted the State's motion to vacate in large part, but denied it as to three provisions of the Consent Decree that are at issue here. In the Order, discussed in detail in Section II.A., which follows, the court found that the State was not entitled to relief from those provisions 0907 which concern the placement of former patients in community programs 0907 because it had not shown that the violations of federal law proscribed by the Consent Decree and Exit Criteria would not recur. The State appealed, giving rise to Case No. 02-13499.
II. DECISIONS BELOW
A. The Consent Decree 0907 Case # 02-13499
The district court heard argument on May 23, 2002, on the State's Motion to Terminate Consent Decree and Exit Criteria Stipulation and its Supplemental Motion to Terminate Consent Decree. The court did not take evidence at

the hearing. The court issued its order on June 3, 2002, granting in part and denying in part the State's two motions.
1340 The district court found that the parties were in agreement that closure of GPW *1340 mooted most provisions of the Consent Decree and Exit Criteria regarding conditions of hospitalization, and therefore granted the motions to vacate regarding those provisions. The court then turned to the three provisions disputed here. The court decided that the proper legal framework for analyzing a motion to vacate a consent decree was set forth in United States v. City of Miami, 2 F.3d 1497, 1508 (11th Cir.1993), and Allen v. Alabama State Board of Education, 164 F.3d 1347, 1350 (11th Cir.1999).[3]City of Miami and Allen employ a two-prong inquiry, under which the court first looks to whether "the basic purposes of the decree have been fully achieved." Allen, 164 F.3d at 1350. If so, the court then must find that "there is no significant likelihood of recurring violations of federal law once the decree has been lifted." Id. The court rejected the State's suggestion that the standard of Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 112 S.Ct. 748, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992), should govern, because Rufo dealt with a motion to modify a decree, not a motion to vacate. Applying the City of Miami framework, the court looked first to whether the basic purposes of the decree had been achieved. The court focused on the State's argument that the order of June 28, 2001, following the DOJ trial (hereinafter, the "Bench Trial Order") was conclusive as to the State's compliance with the Consent Decree and exit standards. The court noted that the Bench Trial Order expressly stated that the purpose of the trial was not to evaluate the State's obligations under the Consent Decree. However, the court acknowledged that its findings of fact 0907 that the State was making appropriate community placements as of the time of the trial 0907 suggested that basic purpose of the decree was being achieved with respect to the patients hospitalized as of September 1999, and with respect to patients discharged as of that date.
The court further found, however, that even if the Bench Trial Order indicated that the basic purposes of the decree were being achieved as of the time of the DOJ trial, that finding was not conclusive as to the "great number" of patients discharged between the trial and GPW's shutdown in February 2002. Because there was no evidence that those remaining patients had been discharged in compliance with the Community Compliance Exit Criteria, the court could not conclude that there was no significant likelihood of a recurring violation of federal law if the decree were lifted. Consequently, the court denied the State's motion to vacate the three disputed paragraphs of the decree.
B. Attorneys' Fees 0907 Case # 02-14670
The district court issued its Order denying the State's request for attorneys' fees on August 5, 2002. In its Order, the district court agreed with the Magistrate Judge that Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 98 S.Ct. 694, 54 L.Ed.2d 648 (1978), provided the proper legal standard by which to evaluate the petition. Under Christiansburg, a prevailing defendant in a civil-rights action may be awarded attorneys' fees when it is shown that the plaintiff's case was "frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation," but the defendant need not show that the case was actually brought in bad faith.
The court rejected the State's suggestion that the more lenient standard of Geier v. Richardson, 871 F.2d 1310 (6th Cir.1989) 0907 under which the prevailing party is presumptively entitled to attorneys' fees regardless of whether 1341 the case *1341 is shown to be frivolous 0907 was appropriate when attorneys' fees are sought against the Government in a CRIPA action. Instead, the court held that Christiansburg should provide the standard because: (1) the legislative history of CRIPA indicates that Congress intended for prevailing legal standards under other civil-rights statutes to apply, which meant Christiansburg; (2) CRIPA's fee-shifting language is similar to that in other civil-rights statutes to which Christiansburg applies; and (3) the policy considerations behind Christiansburg 0907 to provide an incentive for aggrieved parties to enforce civil-rights laws and to punish wrongdoing defendants 0907 were similarly applicable to CRIPA, thus indicating that attorneys' fees awards were principally intended for prevailing plaintiffs and not defendants.
Applying Christiansburg, the court agreed with the Magistrate Judge that the State had not shown that the DOJ's case was frivolous. The court noted that the State did not even move for summary judgment, that the trial was substantive 0907 lasting for 23 days and involving the testimony of numerous experts 0907 and that the DOJ's case was

supported by allegations of death or serious injury to many patients. The court rejected the State's contention that the DOJ should have scaled back its claims upon learning of the imminent closure of GPW, because the hospital in fact remained open for two more years, during which time the allegedly unconstitutional conditions could have continued to harm patients.[4]
III. DISCUSSION
A. The Consent Decree 0907 Case # 02-13499
A consent decree is a judgment, and thus subject to Rule 60(b), which provides in part that a party may obtain relief from a final judgment if "the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application." Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b)(5). A party seeking modification of a consent decree bears a heavy burden of persuasion. See Sierra Club v. Meiburg, 296 F.3d 1021, 1034 (11th Cir. 2002) ("A party seeking to modify a consent decree has a high hurdle to clear and the wind in its face."). Generally, however, indefinite federal court oversight of state institutions is disfavored, and a federal court should terminate supervision once the defendant comes into compliance with the law. See Ensley Branch, NAACP v. Seibels, 31 F.3d 1548, 1574-75 (11th Cir.1994) ("Remedial decrees should require the responsible officials to end their unconstitutional action posthaste. Remedial decrees should not foster prolonged oversight and management by the least representative branch."). A district court's decision to modify, or not modify, a consent decree is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Jacksonville Branch, NAACP v. Duval County Sch. Bd., 978 F.2d 1574, 1578 (11th Cir.1992). We review for clear error the findings of fact on which a modification decision is based. Id.
The thrust of the State's argument on appeal is that the district court should have vacated the Consent Decree because of changes of fact and law. With respect to the former, the State argues that the DOJ Bench Trial established that there are no longer constitutional violations, and that fact coupled with the closure of GPW, under a proper application of the Rufo standard, warranted vacation of the Decree. The State also argues that 1342 D.W. v. *1342 Rogers, 113 F.3d 1214 (11th Cir.1997), constitutes a change of law and that, as a result of that decision, states have no constitutional duty to provide mental health services after patients have been discharged from state custody.[5] Finally, the State suggests that, in the absence of a violation of federal law, the district court may have lacked jurisdiction to continue enforcing the decree. Specifically, the State contends that, in order to apply the narrow exception to state Eleventh Amendment immunity for prospective injunctive relief recognized by Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), the court must find that the defendant is engaged in an ongoing violation of federally protected rights.
We first address the district court's formulation of the City of Miami standard under which it assessed the State's petition for relief. We then turn to the court's application of that standard to the facts.
1. The Rufo and City of Miami standards
Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 112 S.Ct. 748, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992), involved a longrunning class action by pretrial detainees challenging the conditions of their confinement, including overcrowding, poor sanitation, and cramped cells. The district court found that conditions at the jail were so onerous as to constitute punishment without benefit of trial, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court set a deadline for the county to cease using the substandard facility, and ordered that replacement facilities be readied. In response to that order, the parties entered into a consent decree that obligated the county to provide modernized housing with specified amenities and living space. But during the pendency of the consent decree, two things happened: first, jail population grew faster than expected, and second, the Supreme Court clarified the amount of inmate living space that was constitutionally required. These developments prompted the county to move to modify the consent decree on the basis of changed circumstances.
The Court held that the rigorous showing required by United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U.S. 106, 52 S.Ct. 460, 76 L.Ed. 999 (1932) for relief from a court-approved settlement agreement 0907 "[n]othing less than a clear showing of

grievous wrong evoked by new and unforeseen conditions" 0907 was impractically rigid in dealing with institutional reform litigation, because of the strong public interests at stake. Rather, the Rufo Court held, a decree can be modified if the party seeking modification shows "a significant change in circumstances" 0907 either of fact or of law 0907 warranting revision. Rufo, 502 U.S. at 383, 112 S.Ct. at 760. If such showing is made, "the court should consider whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance." Id. The Court elaborated on possible changed circumstances: (a) "changed factual conditions make compliance with the decree substantially more onerous" than was contemplated; (b) the decree "proves to be unworkable because of unforeseen obstacles," or (c) "enforcement of the decree without modification would be detrimental to the public interest." Id. at 384-85, 112 S.Ct. at 760.
In United States v. City of Miami, 2 F.3d 1497, 1508 (11th Cir.1993), we applied Rufo in the context of a motion to 1343 modify *1343 or vacate a consent decree in a class-action discrimination case. In that case, the Justice
Department sued the City of Miami, alleging that minorities and women suffered widespread employment discrimination in the fire department and other city agencies. The parties averted trial by entering into a consent decree calling for reforms in the hiring and promotion process, which the district court entered as its judgment. Some years later, a firefighters' union 0907 which was granted intervenor status 0907 sought to modify or vacate the decree on the grounds that the decree had achieved its purpose of diversifying the fire department's ranks.
In considering whether to modify the decree, we observed 0907 citing Rufo 0907 that the first step was to determine the "basic purpose" of the agreement. Id. at 1504. If the modification was directed to that basic purpose, it would likely frustrate that purpose and was therefore impermissible; if it was directed only to "one of several means of accomplishing the purpose ... or one of several means of measuring compliance," then it might be permitted. Id. at 1505.
We then evaluated whether the decree could be lifted rather than merely modified. We again began with the first prong of Rufo: determine the "basic purpose." Then 0907 citing Board of Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 111 S.Ct. 630, 112 L.Ed.2d 715 (1991),[6] which preceded Rufo by a year 0907 we said:
[O]n remand, the district court must determine whether the decree's basic purpose of eliminating the effects of past discrimination has been achieved .... In determining whether the decree's purpose has been fulfilled, the district court should consider whether the City has complied in good faith with the decree and whether the vestiges of past discrimination have been eliminated to the extent practicable.... In sum, termination of the consent decree would be appropriate if the district court finds that the decree is clearly no longer necessary either to prevent discrimination in the future or to remedy the effects of past discrimination.
Id. at 1508 (internal quotes omitted).
In the case at bar, the district court treated Rufo and City of Miami as mutually exclusive standards 0907 the former applicable only to requests to modify a decree, and the latter appropriate where a party seeks to be relieved from the decree entirely. Accordingly, it applied only City of Miami. While we disagree with the district court's 1344 characterization of these *1344 cases, its approach did not constitute reversible error, particularly in light of the nature of these Defendants' petition for relief.
In our view, the City of Miami formulation is merely a gloss or a method of applying Rufo, not a distinct standard. See Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. NLRB, 64 F.3d 880, 888 (3rd Cir.1995) (applying Rufo to a request to modify or terminate injunction, but enumerating flexible list of factors similar to those in City of Miami, including "whether the party subject to its terms has complied or attempted to comply in good faith with the injunction; and the likelihood that the conduct or conditions sought to be prevented will recur absent the injunction"). City of Miami itself made no attempt to limit the application of Rufo or to distinguish it. The City of Miami court did not treat the requests to modify and to vacate the consent decree as two analytically distinct matters; rather, it discussed them together. See 2 F.3d at 1505 ("We find that the principles articulated in Rufo and Dowell are applicable to requests to modify or terminate decrees in employment discrimination class actions, like the one before us.") (emphasis added).

To put it another way, we do not read City of Miami as indicating that a district court is without authority to terminate a consent decree (as opposed to merely modifying it) if 0907 to use Rufo's formulation 0907 changed circumstances have caused compliance with the decree to become substantially more onerous, or have rendered the decree impracticable, or its continued enforcement inimical to the public interest. Nor do we understand the district court to have believed its discretion was so constrained.[7] We therefore discern no prejudicial error in the district court's method of analysis.
The State petitioned for relief from the decree principally based on the court's findings at the DOJ Bench Trial that GPW was providing a constitutionally adequate level of care. That development could be considered a change in law or fact (what the State would call a "Rufo case"), but it could just as easily be considered a finding of substantial compliance with the decree (what the State concedes would be a "City of Miami" case). This substantial overlap is one reason that we think it was inappropriate for the district court to attempt to draw a bright line between Rufo and City of Miami where none exists.
The situation is similar with respect to the closure of GPW. Again, while this claim could be viewed as one of changed factual circumstances, it could also be treated as a claim of substantial compliance (in that all of the patients had been successfully discharged). Again, there is nothing inconsistent between City of Miami and Rufo, and we find no reversible error in the district court's analysis.[8]
2. Substantive claims
We turn then to the State's substantive arguments. It argues that three post-decree developments of law and fact required the district court to vacate the remaining portions of the decree: (1) our decision in D.W. v. Rogers, 113 1345 F.3d 1214 (11th Cir. 1997), addressing a state's obligation to provide mental health treatment to persons *1345 in legal but not physical custody; (2) the Bench Trial Order, which found no ongoing violations of substantive due process in the provision of care at GPW; and (3) the closure of the hospital. The State argues that these developments make it inequitable to continue enforcing the Decree (what the State labels a Rufo argument) and make it unlikely that constitutional violations, if they occurred at all, will recur (its City of Miami argument). The State variously phrases its argument that the Decree should be vacated, sometimes arguing for lifting the Decree because there are no constitutional violations (and none likely), and sometimes arguing in quasi-jurisdictional terms (that the exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity recognized in Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), requires an ongoing violation of a federally protected right).
Before turning to the substance of this argument, we address the threshold matter of the burden of proof. We reject the State's suggestion that the burden of proof should be placed on the Class Plaintiffs. To the contrary, the Supreme Court in Rufo clearly held that the burden of proof is on the party seeking modification of a consent decree. Rufo, 502 U.S. at 393, 112 S.Ct. at 765 ("[A] party seeking modification of a consent decree must establish that a significant change in facts or law warrants revision of the decree and that the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance."); accord City of Miami, 2 F.3d at 1504 (quoting Rufo); see also Hodge v. Dep't of Housing & Urban Dev., 862 F.2d 859, 862 (11th Cir.1989) (holding that burden is on party seeking relief from final judgment under Rule 60(b) to establish grounds for relief). The State's conclusory assertions of lack of jurisdiction are unpersuasive.
Even the Seventh Circuit cases on which the State relies hold that, in the context of a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from a consent decree, the burden is on the party seeking relief to establish that changed circumstances warrant relief from the decree. See David B. v. McDonald, 116 F.3d 1146, 1149 (7th Cir.1997) (quoting Rufo: "a party seeking modification of a consent decree bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree"); accord United States v. Krilich, 303 F.3d 784, 789-90 (7th Cir.2002); United States v. Rueth Dev. Co., 335 F.3d 598 (7th Cir. 2003). The district court properly placed the burden of proof on the State.

(a) The D.W. decision
The State argues that D.W. v. Rogers, 113 F.3d 1214 (11th Cir.1997), constituted a change in the governing law which warrants termination of the Consent Decree. The State argues that it was completely absolved of all constitutional duty and all responsibility once GPW was closed and the patients discharged from that hospital. For several reasons, we decline the State's invitation to order a termination of the Consent Decree on this ground at this stage of the litigation.
The district court noted that the D.W. decision was distinguishable in that it did not involve a consent decree. The State's initial brief responds simply by asserting in conclusory fashion that that distinction is irrelevant. Because the State offers no analysis or authority to guide our review, and because the matter has not been addressed by the district court, we decline to address the issue further.[9]
1346 *1346 In any event, even if the State could persuade us that it is completely absolved of any and all responsibility the moment a patient is released from its physical custody (which of course we do not address and do not decide), the State would still not be entitled to a termination of the Consent Decree at this stage. The State has acknowledged that, as to some undetermined subset of patients, their release from GPW did not end their stay in the State's physical custody. For example, counsel for the State conceded at oral argument that approximately 90 patients were considered too ill to be discharged when the time came to leave GPW, and were transferred to custodial settings in other state hospitals.[10] Consequently, because there was insufficient factual evidence that all discharged GPW patients were out of the State's physical custody 0907 and indeed, a strong contrary indication that some were not 0907 the State did not carry its burden of showing that none of the released patients had a continuing due process right to adequate care, even under the State's reading of D.W. As a result, the State has not established that no live controversy existed among the parties, or that further constitutional violations could not occur.
Finally, the State has failed to address the fact that the D.W. decision did not address the issue which the State apparently wants to raise in the instant case. D.W. merely stands for the narrow proposition that a State's duty to provide treatment does not begin until a state assumes physical custody of the person as well as legal custody. By contrast, in the instant case, the state clearly assumed constitutional duties with respect to the patients by assuming physical custody. The issue here is the point at which such duty ends. We decline to address that novel and difficult issue for several reasons. The issue has been inadequately addressed in the briefs on appeal, and was not addressed at all by the district court. Moreover, whether or not a release from physical custody relieves a state of the duty it had assumed may depend upon the circumstances surrounding the release. See Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir.1999); Davis v. Brady, 143 F.3d 1021 (6th Cir. 1998); see also Marsh v. Butler County, Ala., 268 F.3d 1014, 1039 n.19 & 20 (11th Cir.2001) (en banc). There is no record evidence at all with respect to the discharge of patients from GPW from and after September 1999; it would be unwise to attempt resolution of the legal issue in the absence of concrete facts.
(b) Closure of GPW
Our foregoing discussion applies equally to the State's argument that the closure of GPW and release of all its patients terminates any live federal interest in continued enforcement of the decree. For the reasons above mentioned, the State has failed to establish that there are not ongoing constitutional violations and that none are 1347 likely to recur; at this stage of the litigation the State has failed to carry its burden *1347 of proving that the alleged changes of fact and law warrant vacation or further revision of the Consent Decree.
(c) The Bench Trial Order
The State argues that the DOJ Bench Trial established that there are no ongoing constitutional violations and none likely to recur. We do not believe that the court's findings in the Bench Trial Order that conditions at GPW met substantive due process standards were conclusive as to the separate proceeding challenged here.

The issue before the district court during the DOJ bench trial was a relatively discrete one: whether, as of September of 1999, the State was violating the Fourteenth Amendment and the ADA by failing to protect patients from harm, failing to provide the level of care appropriate to meet the patients' liberty interests, and failing to ensure that each patient was placed in the most appropriate setting for his needs upon release from the hospital. In ruling on the instant motion, the district court acknowledged that, although the bench trial findings were not phrased in terms of compliance with the Consent Decree, the findings were tantamount to a declaration that conditions at GPW met the basic requirements of the decree with respect to the patients still hospitalized as of September 1999 and with respect to patients discharged to less restrictive settings as of that date. However, the court further found that its observations about the level of care as of the bench trial did not conclusively establish that the level of care was constitutionally adequate as of June 2002 or that violations could not recur. In particular, the district court noted that the Bench Trial Order did not address at all the circumstances surrounding the discharge of patients from GPW after September 1999. We agree.
In order for the findings at the bench trial to be preclusive in the separate proceeding at issue here, the State would have to show that: (1) the issue was identical in both the prior and current action; (2) the issue was actually litigated; (3) the determination of the issue was critical and necessary to the judgment in the prior action; and (4) the burden of persuasion in the subsequent action is not significantly heavier than in the prior proceeding. Agripost, Inc. v. Miami-Dade County, 195 F.3d 1225, 1230 n.11 (11th Cir.1999); In re Bilzerian, 153 F.3d 1278, 1281 (11th Cir. 1998). The State has failed to show that all prerequisites for the application of collateral estoppel were met here.
The DOJ was required at the bench trial to prove its claims of ADA and Fourteenth Amendment violations by a preponderance of the evidence. Here, however, the State bore the burden of establishing grounds for relief in moving to vacate the Consent Decree. Because of the differential burdens, a finding that the DOJ could not demonstrate that the State was violating substantive due process or the ADA was not the same thing as saying that the State could demonstrate affirmatively its satisfaction of its constitutional obligations. See Young & Co. v. Shea, 397 F.2d 185, 188 (5th Cir.1958)[11] (refusing to apply collateral estoppel to jury verdict in administrative proceeding before Commissioner of Labor over entitlement to workers' compensation benefits because "the fact that a worker could not convince a jury that he had suffered an injury should not estop him from attempting to convince a Commissioner that he was injured inasmuch as the standard of persuasion is less before the 1348 Commissioner than before the court"); *1348 accord In re St. Laurent, 991 F.2d 672, 677 (11th Cir.1993).
Even more important, the issues in the DOJ bench trial and in this Rule 60(b) proceeding were not identical. In the latter proceeding, the court was properly concerned not merely with whether the State had achieved compliance with constitutional standards at one point, but whether it was presently in compliance. See Dowell, 498 U.S. at 248, 111 S.Ct. at 637 (stating that court, in deference to local control of schools, should dissolve desegregation decree "after the local authorities have operated in compliance with it for a reasonable period of time"). Also, and significantly, the placement of patients recently discharged from GPW is a factual development subsequent to, and distinct from, the events at issue in the DOJ trial. The Bench Trial Order therefore cannot be decisive as to whether the State was violating the constitutional rights of later-discharged patients.[12]
For the foregoing reasons, the State has not yet established the absence of ongoing constitutional violations, e.g., with respect to those patients discharged since September 1999, and has not established that constitutional violations will not recur. Because of this failure, the State's reliance upon Evans v. City of Chicago, 10 F.3d 474 (7th Cir.1998) (en banc), and David B. v. McDonald, 116 F.3d 1146 (7th Cir.1997), is misplaced. In Evans the Seventh Circuit held that a consent decree should be vacated because of a subsequent change in the law; it was determined that the alleged equal protection violation and the alleged due process violation, which comprised the federal claim upon which the consent decree was based, were wholly without merit, thus leaving no substantial claim under federal law to sustain the consent decree. The decisive opinion in that case by Judge Ripple concluded that that change of law made "further enforcement of the consent decree by the district court inappropriate under the standards set forth by the Supreme Court in Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 112 S.Ct. 748, 762-64, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992)." Evans, 10 F.3d at 483. In David B. the Seventh Circuit held that a subsequent change of law, the enactment of a state statute relieving the defendant agency of its authority over certain juvenile treatment programs that were the subject of the consent decree, warranted either

modification or vacation of the consent decree. In remanding to the district court, the Seventh Circuit instructed that the court should "determine whether a substantial federal claim supports the decree as a whole; if not, the entire decree must be lifted." David B., 116 F.3d at 1150. Unlike Evans and David B., the State in the instant case 1349 has failed to demonstrate the absence of a substantial federal claim[13]; the State has *1349 failed to demonstrate the absence of an ongoing constitutional violation, and has failed to demonstrate that there is no likelihood that constitutional violation will recur.[14]
(d) Substantive Claims 0907 Summary
In sum, we conclude that the State bears the burden of establishing that changed circumstances warrant modification or vacation of the Consent Decree. The State has failed at this stage of the litigation to establish that any of the after-occurring developments of law or fact on which the State relies would compel a district court to grant more than the considerable measure of relief from the Decree that the court below extended. The State has failed to establish that no live controversy existed, or that changed circumstances warrant vacation of the Decree, or that no violations of federally protected rights were occurring or likely to occur. Consequently, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to terminate the remaining provisions of the Consent Decree.
B. Attorneys' Fees 0907 Case # 02-14670
The State appeals the district court's order of August 5, 2002, denying its motion for an award of attorneys' fees. The district court found that the State failed to make the showing required by Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 98 S.Ct. 694, 54 L.Ed.2d 648 (1978), which provides that a prevailing defendant in a civilrights action may be awarded attorneys' fees when it is shown that the plaintiff's case was "frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation."
The State contends that, pursuant to the fee-shifting provision of CRIPA, 42 U.S.C. § 1997c(d), it was entitled as 1350 the prevailing party to recover its legal fees from the DOJ. The State raises three lines of argument: *1350 (1) the
plain language of § 1997c(d) indicates that the "prevailing party" is entitled to fees, regardless of whether the party is plaintiff or defendant; (2) the district court erred in applying Christiansburg because the history and purpose of § 1997c(d) are unlike those of other fee-shifting provisions for which Christiansburg was coined, and (3) even if Christiansburg supplies the standard, the district court employed it erroneously, by too literally applying the "frivolity" requirement and by failing to recognize the DOJ's vexatious litigation conduct.
We review a district court's decision to award or not to award attorneys' fees for abuse of discretion. Sayers v. Stewart Sleep Ctr., 140 F.3d 1351, 1353 (11th Cir.1998); EEOC v. Reichhold Chem., 988 F.2d 1564, 1568 (11th Cir.1993). Under the "American Rule," the default assumption is that each party is responsible for its own legal fees, and thus fees ordinarily will not be awarded to the prevailing party without express statutory authority. Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home v. West Virginia Dep't of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 602, 121 S.Ct. 1835, 1839, 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001) (citing Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc'y, 421 U.S. 240, 247, 95 S.Ct. 1612, 44 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975)). Congress has chosen to modify the American Rule in numerous statutes, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1975, so as to provide for the prevailing party to recover its reasonable attorney fees from the loser.
Section 1997c(d) is one such statute. It provides, in its entirety:
In any action in which the United States joins as an intervenor under this section, the court may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee against the United States as part of the costs. Nothing in this subsection precludes the award of attorney's fees available under any other provisions of the United States Code.
42 U.S.C. § 1997c(d).
In Christiansburg, the Supreme Court held that, even where a statute is facially neutral as to which party can receive attorneys' fees, two equitable considerations weigh in favor of a more lenient standard when awarding

fees to the plaintiff as opposed to the defendant: first, the prevailing plaintiff is serving to vindicate important federal rights as Congress' designated instrument of enforcement (the "private attorney general" rationale), and second, "when a district court awards counsel fees to a prevailing plaintiff, it is awarding them against a violator of federal law." Id. at 418-19, 98 S.Ct. at 699.
1. The State's Section 1997c(d) Argument
The State first argues that the CRIPA statute itself makes an award of attorneys' fees to a prevailing defendant presumptively appropriate. This argument overlaps with the following argument and will be dealt with principally in subsection (2), infra. It is enough to observe here that, because § 1997c(d) is permissive and not mandatory 0907 it says the court "may allow" attorneys' fees 0907 a fee award is not automatic. See Christiansburg, 434 U.S. at 418, 98 S.Ct. at 699 (interpreting same statutory term 0907 "may allow" 0907 in Title VII fee statute, and rejecting a similar argument that prevailing defendant is presumptively entitled to award). Consequently, there must be standards to guide the district court's exercise of discretion. Thus the only real question is what legal standard governs, and whether the district court applied it properly.[15]
1351 *1351 2. Applicability of Christiansburg Standard
The State's principal point is that § 1997c(d) is simply different from other fee-shifting statutes in wording and in intent, and thus the rules of interpretation governing those other statutes do not apply. Its argument begins with the wording of the statute itself. Since the statute excludes the United States from receiving a fee award, and since it speaks in terms of recovery of fees "against the United States," the provision appears 0907 unlike other civilrights statutes 0907 to be intended solely for the benefit of prevailing defendants. Thus, the State argues, the analysis applied to other fee-shifting statutes, which are principally intended to benefit prevailing plaintiffs, is irrelevant. The State then argues that the purpose of fee-shifting provisions 0907 to encourage private plaintiffs who may lack financing to take the lead in enforcing anti-discrimination laws as "private attorneys general" 0907 does not apply to CRIPA, since it does not involve a private plaintiff of limited means. Therefore, the State contends, the caselaw based on that policy should not control.
We do not entirely accept the State's logic. It does not necessarily follow that, because it is harder (or in this case, impossible) for a prevailing plaintiff to get attorneys' fees, it should be easier for a prevailing defendant to obtain fees. In enacting CRIPA, Congress weighed the equities in favor of prevailing defendants by disqualifying the Government from receiving fees even if it prevails. There is thus no compelling equitable reason for courts to make the system even more favorable to defendants.[16]
As discussed infra, the state of the law when Congress enacted CRIPA was that prevailing defendants could qualify for attorneys' fees only by showing that the plaintiff's case was frivolous, unreasonable or without foundation. "The normal rule of statutory construction is that if Congress intends for legislation to change the interpretation of a judicially created concept, it makes that intent specific." In re Colortex Indus., Inc., 19 F.3d 1371, 1375 n. 2 (11th Cir.1994) (quoting Midlantic Nat'l Bank v. New Jersey Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 474 U.S. 494, 501, 106 S.Ct. 755, 759, 88 L.Ed.2d 859 (1986)). If Congress wanted to lower the bar for a prevailing defendant under CRIPA, it could and should have said so. We can infer no such intent from its silence.
It is probably true that the risk of having to pay the opponents' legal fees would be a greater deterrent to a private plaintiff than to the Justice Department, thus reducing the public-policy concerns that normally mitigate against making plaintiffs pay attorneys' fees. However, since only a government entity can be sued under CRIPA, the equities on the defendant's side are also weaker, as we need not worry that the expense of this litigation will put the State of Florida out of business.
1352 Outside of the intellectual property arena, which we find readily distinguishable[17]*1352 , the State has not identified any federal statute similar to ours that presumptively entitles the prevailing defendant to attorneys' fees. To the extent that the standard varies from Christiansburg at all, it varies in the other direction, making it harder for defendants to obtain fees. See, e.g., Turlington v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 135 F.3d 1428, 1437 (11th Cir.1998)

(rejecting Christiansburg and applying "bad faith" requirement of Fair Labor Standards Act to defendant's request for attorneys' fees under Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b)). In light of this background of attorneys' fee law, we cannot infer from Congress' silence in CRIPA an intent to lower the established bar and carve out a uniquely favorable standard for government defendants. Further, the other equitable factor in Christiansburg 0907 that an award against a losing defendant, unlike a losing plaintiff, is an award against a federal lawbreaker 0907 still applies in the context of CRIPA. We therefore see no compelling equitable argument that requires altering the normal legal standard by which fees are awarded.
Significantly, Christiansburg itself involved an award against a federal agency 0907 the EEOC 0907 and this Circuit has continued to apply the established standard in discrimination cases brought by the EEOC, with no indication that a different standard should apply because the Government was the losing plaintiff. See Reichhold Chem., 988 F.2d at 1571-72 (overturning district court's fee award because EEOC succeeded in presenting a prima facie case of discrimination, indicating that its claims were not frivolous); EEOC v. Pet, Inc., 719 F.2d 383, 384-85 (11th Cir. 1983) (stating that even though EEOC failed to establish prima facie case, its litigation strategy was not unreasonable and could have succeeded under different circumstances; thus, under Christiansburg, case was not so frivolous as to support fee award).
The principal purpose of CRIPA was to promote the involvement of the Justice Department in institutional reform litigation; the legislative history indicates that Congress recognized that the participation of the DOJ in disability discrimination cases was invaluable. See S.REP. No. 96-416 (1979) at 19-22, reprinted at 1980 U.S.C.C.A.N. 787, 801-03 (discussing barriers to litigation faced by mentally disabled plaintiffs, and "unique and invaluable" role of Attorney General in bringing class actions on their behalf). It thus is logical to interpret § 1997c(d) in para materia with fee-shifting provisions in other discrimination statutes that were, similarly, designed to promote and reward the involvement of plaintiffs in furthering the statutes' intent.
Although Christiansburg arose in a Title VII discrimination case, courts have applied its standard to other feeshifting statutes, particularly those in the civil-rights arena (such as the ADA and the Voting Rights Act), which are worded similarly to the Title VII standard and to the § 1997c(d) standard at issue here. The statute applied in Christiansburg, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k), states that "the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the [EEOC] or the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee ... and the [EEOC] and the United States shall be liable for costs the same as a private person." Almost identical wording appears in § 1997c(d). Use of the same or similar language in two fee-shifting statutes "is a strong indication that they are to be interpreted alike." Independent Fed'n of Flight Attendants v. Zipes, 491 U.S. 754, 759 n. 2, 109 S.Ct. 2732, 2735 n. 2, 105 L.Ed.2d 639 (1989) (internal quotes omitted).[18]
1353 *1353 The published legislative history on § 1997c(d) is extremely sparse. The Senate report states only: "An amendment was accepted ... which would allow the prevailing party other than the United States a reasonable attorney's fee at the discretion of the court." See S. REP. No. 96-416, at 31 (1979), reprinted at 1980 U.S.C.C.A.N. 787, 813. A footnote adds: "This provision is similar to that found in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 98 S.Ct. 694, 54 L.Ed.2d 648." See id. at 68, n. 86, 1980 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 832. The House conference report, H. CONF. REP. No. 96-897 (1980), reprinted at 1980 U.S.C.C.A.N. 832, says in explaining the fee-shifting provision: "The award is discretionary with the court, and it is intended that the present standards used by courts under the civil rights laws will apply." See id. at 12, 1980 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 837.
The DOJ argues that the reference to "present standards" in the House report, and the explicit citation to Christiansburg in the Senate report, leave no doubt that Congress contemplated application of Christiansburg, which was decided just two years earlier. The State contends, however, that the reference to "present standards" could just as easily refer to the Supreme Court's decision in Newman v. Piggie Park Enter., Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 88 S.Ct. 964, 19 L.Ed.2d 1263 (1968), which makes an award of fees the default assumption unless it is shown that an award would be "unjust."
Piggie Park, however, was a case in which a prevailing plaintiff sought attorneys' fees under Title II of the Civil Rights Act. By its own terms, the case applies where the applicant for attorneys' fees has been successful in obtaining an injunction, see id. at 402, 88 S.Ct. at 966, which obviously refers to plaintiffs. That distinction was

made abundantly clear in Christiansburg, which cited and distinguished Piggie Park. See Christiansburg, 434 U.S. at 418-19, 98 S.Ct. at 699 ("[A]s emphasized so forcefully in Piggie Park, the plaintiff is the chosen instrument of Congress to vindicate a policy that Congress considered of the highest priority.") (internal quotes and citation omitted). Thus, it is apparent that by 1980, when Congress enacted CRIPA, the prevailing legal standard for the award of attorneys' fees to a prevailing defendant was Christiansburg, not Piggie Park.
The State offers as an alternative standard to Christiansburg the Sixth Circuit's decision in Geier v. Richardson, 1354 871 F.2d 1310 (6th Cir.1989).[19] We decline the *1354 State's invitation to adopt the reasoning of Geier, which
found Christiansburg inapplicable in the context of an unsuccessful complaint in intervention by the Government in a Title IX desegregation case. Geier is factually unlike our case. There, the Government opposed a consent decree agreed upon between the private plaintiffs and the state. The Government lost its case against a state government and the private plaintiffs. The private plaintiffs were suing to enforce their civil rights in a Title IX desegregation case, and therefore were the private attorneys general seeking to enforce the statute, i.e., the parties whom the caselaw is reluctant to chill. Geier, 871 F.2d at 1314. Moreover, the Geier court saw the Government's litigation conduct as unusually egregious; the Government switched sides and attacked the parties' consent decree after having supported it, thus forcing the original opposing parties to unite in defending it. Thus, even though the Sixth Circuit did not use the words "frivolous" or "bad faith," attorneys' fees might well have been justified under Christiansburg.
In sum, we hold that Christiansburg is applicable to a claim for attorneys' fees under CRIPA. The same policy arguments the State mounts here were applicable to Christiansburg, yet the Supreme Court obviously was not persuaded that a different set of standards should apply when the Government is the unsuccessful plaintiff.
3. The District Court Correctly Applied the Christiansburg Analysis
As a fallback, the State argues that it was entitled to attorneys' fees even if Christiansburg applies. The State contends that the district court erred in analyzing the Christiansburg factors by failing to take account of the DOJ's unreasonable litigation conduct, in particular its refusal to settle any claims even after learning of GPW's imminent shutdown.
That the DOJ lost on all counts does not, of course, establish frivolity by itself. Christiansburg cautioned against such hindsight bias:
[T]he term meritless is to be understood as meaning groundless or without foundation, rather than simply that the plaintiff has ultimately lost his case .... [I]t is important that a district court resist the understandable temptation to engage in post hoc reasoning by concluding that, because a plaintiff did not ultimately prevail, his action must have been unreasonable or without foundation.
Id. at 421-22, 98 S.Ct. at 700. In EEOC v. Pet, Inc., 719 F.2d 383, 384 (11th Cir.1983), we interpreted Christiansburg's caution against second-guessing to require that, when determining whether a claim was or became frivolous, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-prevailing plaintiff. We have recognized that the showing required to support a finding of frivolity is a "stringent" one, see Walker v. NationsBank of Fla., 53 F.3d 1548, 1558 (11th Cir.1995).
There is no dispute that our decision in Sullivan v. School Bd. of Pinellas County, 773 F.2d 1182 (11th Cir.1985), provides the framework to assess whether a plaintiff's claim was frivolous for purposes of an attorneys' fees award. In Sullivan, a Title VII discrimination case, we set down "general guidelines" for analyzing the strength of the plaintiff's case against the Christiansburg standard: "(1) whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case; 1355 (2) whether the defendant offered to settle; *1355 and (3) whether the trial court dismissed the case prior to trial or held a full-blown trial on the merits." Id. at 1189. The Sullivan court reversed the district court's award of legal fees, concluding that the plaintiff's case was not "patently devoid of merit" based on the facts that: the case survived a Rule 41(b) motion to dismiss; the defendant never moved for summary judgment; the plaintiff produced anecdotal evidence that her supervisors were biased against women and Jews; and the plaintiff's own testimony, if believed, would have supported a reasonable jury finding that she suffered from gender and religious discrimination.

The Sullivan factors here point, if anything, against an award of fees. The case was not dismissed before trial, and the Magistrate Judge found (and the district court agreed) that the DOJ established a prima facie case. That conclusion of fact is not clearly erroneous, for the reasons set forth in the district court's decision: the DOJ put forth expert testimony and documentation that, if believed, could have supported a reasonable trier of fact's finding that the State was providing constitutionally inadequate care, and thus if the state had moved for summary judgment, it would have been denied. There is no evidence that the State made a settlement offer that the DOJ rejected, and the State does not so allege.
The State's only real evidence that the DOJ pursued an unreasonable litigation strategy is the fact that the DOJ did not drop or amend claims in light of the planned closure of GPW. The trial court, however, found that the DOJ's conduct was reasonable given the lengthy period (two years) between the announcement and shutdown, and the concern for patient safety during the interim. Consequently, the district court's application of the Christiansburg/Sullivan factors was not clearly erroneous.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, and in light of the instant record or lack thereof, we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion in denying the State's Rule 60(b) motion for relief from the Consent Decree (Case No. 02-13499),[20] and we cannot conclude that the district court erred in its decision not to award attorneys' fees to the State after the DOJ Bench Trial (Case No. 02-14670). Accordingly, the decisions below are
AFFIRMED.
[*] Honorable John F. Nangle, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, sitting by designation.
[1] The principal named Defendant, Bradley, is the former Superintendent of GPW. Because the suit is in substance one against the State of Florida, "the State" will be used to refer to the Defendants in the aggregate.
[2] To cite but one example, one provision of the Exit Criteria, regarding the Defendants' obligation to install an elevator, stated: "Delete consent decree requirement pursuant to agreement of Plaintiffs and Office of the Monitor."
[3] The court recognized that Allen was vacated as a result of a settlement between the parties, see 216 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir.2000), but still found its approach useful as persuasive authority for how the Circuit would treat a motion to vacate.
[4] The court agreed with the Magistrate Judge that the State was entitled to its court costs and litigation expenses. That part of the Order is not challenged on appeal.
[5] D.W. involved a substantive due process challenge to the state of Alabama's practice of "wait-listing" mentally ill children who had been civilly committed to state custody for treatment of mental illness. The court held that, because the state had not yet assumed physical custody of the child plaintiffs 0907 at most, it had legal custody 0907 the plaintiffs had no due process right to any particular level of treatment. See id. at 1218, 1220.
[6] Dowell, like Rufo, was an "institutional reform" case, in that instance a desegregation case against the Oklahoma City school system. The district court had entered an injunction directing the school district to adopt a busing plan designed to integrate schools in single-race neighborhoods. After several years of active court supervision, the court granted the school system's motion to close the case, but did not vacate the injunction. When the school system later sought to adopt a new school assignment system, a group of parents moved to reactivate court supervision under the injunction, alleging that the system was out of compliance. The district court denied the parents' motion and vacated the injunction, but the Tenth Circuit reversed, relying on the Swift "grievous wrong" standard. The Supreme Court, presaging Rufo, held that Swift was too inflexible a yardstick for assessing the continued usefulness of a consent decree involving school desegregation, because such decrees

are necessarily temporary and require leeway for local innovation. Rather, the Court 0907 in phrasing we adapted in City of Miami 0907 formulated the proper inquiry as "whether the [school system] had complied in good faith with the desegregation decree since it was entered, and whether the vestiges of past discrimination had been eliminated to the extent practicable." Dowell, 498 U.S. at 249-50, 111 S.Ct. at 638.
[7] That the court fully understood the breadth of its discretion is evident in the fact that it did selectively vacate most strictures of the Consent Decree, as the State requested, leaving in place only those substantive provisions governing discharges into community placement, as to which it was not satisfied the State had shown compliance.
[8] Rufo, by its terms, applies where compliance with the terms of a decree becomes substantially more onerous or impracticable because of changed circumstances. Here, the State's claim is just the opposite 0907 that later developments in effect lowered the burden of compliance so that there was nothing left for the decree to accomplish.
[9] Similarly, the State asserts in conclusory fashion that the Exit Criteria are unenforceable. Again, we decline to address this argument which has also not been addressed by the district court. To the extent that the State is asserting as a factual matter that the Exit Criteria were not adopted by the district court as an amendment or supplement to the Consent Decree, we prefer that the district court interpret its own order in the first instance. To the extent that the State is asserting some unspecified legal argument, we would insist that the State articulate any such argument clearly, and support same with analysis and authorities; and in any event, we would prefer for any such argument to be addressed in the first instance by the district court.
[10] Aside from this comment at oral argument, the record is absolutely silent with respect to the placement of the patients discharged since the September 1999 cut-off date for the DOJ litigation, and with respect to the placement of other patients as to which there is some record evidence, the district court has not addressed whether any or all of such placements constitute physical custody in the state vel non. See, e.g., Taylor v. Ledbetter, 818 F.2d 791, 795-96 (11th Cir.1987) (en banc).
[11] In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.1981), this Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.
[12] In addition, the constitutional violations alleged by the original class plaintiffs and those alleged by DOJ were not coextensive; for instance, the class plaintiffs alleged both procedural and substantive due process violations, while the DOJ complaint in intervention alleged only that substantive due process was violated. When the district court held in the Bench Trial Order that no constitutional violations were occurring, its holding was necessarily limited to substantive due process; anything further would be beyond the DOJ complaint and thus not "critical and necessary" to the judgment. Therefore, the State has not shown that the court's finding in the DOJ case that the State was providing a constitutionally adequate level of care addressed every constitutional violation to which the Consent Decree was directed.
[13] Moreover, the State has not argued in its brief on appeal that the "substantial federal claim" referred to in Evans and David B. should be strictly construed to embrace only direct and proven constitutional violations as opposed to related provisions of the Consent Decree. In other words, the State has not argued that there is tension between Evans and David B., on the one hand, and the Supreme Court's decision in Rufo:
Federal courts may not order States or local governments, over their objection, to undertake a course of conduct not tailored to curing a constitutional violation that has been adjudicated.... But we have no doubt that, to "save themselves the time, expense, and inevitable risk of litigation," ... petitioners could settle the dispute over the proper remedy for the constitutional violations that had been found by undertaking to do more than the Constitution itself requires ... [so long as the same] was related to the conditions found to offend the Constitution.
502 U.S. at 389, 112 S.Ct. at 762-63. Because no such argument was raised by the State, and any possibly related argument was inadequately briefed, we do not address it. If raised on remand, we prefer for the district court to address the issue in the first instance.

[14] Because we reject the State's contention that the Bench Trial Order conclusively determined that the State had met all of its obligations to provide a constitutionally appropriate level of care, we do not reach the State's succeeding argument 0907 which was entirely dependent on the faulty premise 0907 that a court loses jurisdiction to enforce compliance with a consent decree settling constitutional claims as soon as the defendant crosses the threshold of constitutionally acceptable performance, regardless of whether the decree purports to require more. We note that the Supreme Court has recently heard arguments in a case on the closely related issue of whether the Eleventh Amendment is waived when a state enters into a consent decree to settle an unlitigated case in which prospective injunctive relief is sought under the doctrine of Ex parte Young, supra. See Frazar v. Gilbert, 300 F.3d 530 (5th Cir.2002), cert. granted sub nom., Frew v. Hawkins, ___ U.S. ___, 123 S.Ct. 1481, 155 L.Ed.2d 223 (2003). Frazar is not our case, because it arose in the setting of a motion by the plaintiff class members to enforce the terms of the decree. The case was therefore not evaluated under Rufo; rather, the burden was properly placed upon the plaintiffs to demonstrate the violation of a federally protected right justifying relief. See Frazar, 300 F.3d at 543. Nevertheless, the Court's answer to the Eleventh Amendment question posed in Frazar could provide guidance in our related inquiry. We therefore are especially hesitant to venture a gratuitous interpretation.
[15] As the State acknowledges, courts have routinely read standards into similar discretionary fee-shifting statutes even where none appears. See, e.g., Bruce v. City of Gainesville, 177 F.3d 949 (11th Cir.1999) (applying Christiansburg dual standard to Americans with Disabilities Act fee-shifting provision, 42 U.S.C. § 12205, which speaks neutrally in terms of allowing a reasonable attorneys' fee to the "prevailing party"). Therefore, the fact that the statute contains no "frivolity" language does not mean that a court cannot impose such a standard consistent with the statute.
[16] Congress has already built an extra measure of protection into CRIPA for defendants by empowering the DOJ to intervene only in cases where there are "egregious or flagrant conditions" causing "grievous harm." 42 U.S.C. § 1997(a).
[17] See infra note 18.
[18] The State argues that courts sometimes have declined to apply the Christiansburg standard to fee-shifting statutes worded similarly to § 1997c(d). However, its principal example is the copyright statute, 17 U.S.C. § 505, which is unlike CRIPA in purpose or history. In Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517, 114 S.Ct. 1023, 127 L.Ed.2d 455 (1994), the Supreme Court found that frivolity was not a prerequisite to an award of attorneys' fees to a prevailing defendant in a Copyright Act suit because: (1) the Copyright Act language was enacted in 1976, before Christiansburg became the accepted legal standard; (2) all other intellectual property statutes have "loser pays" regimes which are party-neutral; (3) the goal of the Copyright Act was not to promote or reward publicinterest litigation; and (4) unlike in civil-rights suits, it is unlikely that plaintiffs in copyright suits will be indigent. Only the fourth concern arguably applies in our case, because of the Justice Department's financial resources.
[19] The State also suggests in its briefs on appeal that the Court look for guidance to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), which presumptively entitles the prevailing party to an award of fees unless the opponent's position is "substantially justified" or "special circumstances" make an award unjust 0907 a standard the State describes as more favorable The State concedes, however, that the EAJA by its terms does not apply to this case and is of instructive value only. The State did not argue for application of the EAJA standard below. Indeed, its brief to the Magistrate Judge mentioned the EAJA only fleetingly and by way of distinction, in arguing that the State should automatically recover its fees without surmounting any additional barrier. Because the EAJA argument presented here was not properly raised below and was not addressed by the district court, we decline to address it here in the first instance.
[20] We sympathize with the State's desire to be freed from the court supervision inherent in the Consent Decree. We fully expect the State will renew its motion for relief after marshaling evidence as to the patients discharged from GPW since September 1999, and we are confident that the district court will entertain such a motion, conduct appropriate evidentiary hearings, and render its decision after receiving the guidance of adequate briefing.

Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.