People First of Wash. v. Rainer RHC

• —' —'

—'

—'

—'_

V_

•• ••

V •• _

• •

MR-WA-002-002

1

In the United States District Court

In and For the Western District for the State of Washington

2

3 People First of Washington, Inc., a
Washington corporation, on
4 behalf of its members and
5 James Campbell, a real person, by and
through his next friend, Dennis
6 Campbell,
7 Chris Olson, a real person, by and
through his next friend, Diane Grace,
8
Houston Williams, a real person, by
9 and through his next friend and
legal guardian, Steven Cassio, 10
Peter Bohnke, a real person, by and 11 through his next friend, John Domenic
Revello, 12
Dawn Lavery, a real person, by and 13 through her next friend and legal
guardian, Emerson Fosner, 14
John Mann, a real person, by and 15 through his next friend, Resa Hayes,
on behalf of themselves and all 16 others similarly situated;

Civil Cause No.
C96-5906

Class Action Civil Rights Complaint

J
-LOdRFO
OCT^j

-ENTERED -RECEIVED

oLfcRK U S W5TRIC1 WgSTfcHN DIEfWICt Cl W !JV.

OTON , DEPUTV

17 and

18 The Arc of Washington State, Inc., a Washington corporation, on behalf
19 of its members;

20 The Autism Society of Washington, on behalf of its members; and
21 The Washington Protection and
22 Advocacy System, Inc., a Washington corporation,
23 Plaintiffs,
24
vs. 25

26

27

Class Action Complaint Civil Rights

28 Page - 1

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

1 The Rainier Residential Habilitation
Center;
2
Michael Lowry, in his official
3 capacity as Governor of the State
of Washington;
4
The Washington Department of Social
5 and Health Services;

6 Lyle Quasim, in his official
capacity as the Secretary of the
7 Washington Department of Social
and Health Services;
8
The Washington Division of
9 Developmental Disabilities;

10 Norm Davis, in his official capacity as the Director of the
11 Washington Division of Developmental Disabilities;
12 Leanna Lamb, in her official
13 capacity as the Superintendent of the Rainier Residential
14 Habilitation Center;

15 The Washington Office of Financial Management; and
16
Gary Robinson, in his official 17 capacity as the Acting Director of
the Washington Office of Financial 18 Management,

19

Defendants.

20

21

22

Preliminary Statement

23

1.1. This is a civil rights class action brought by six Washington citizens with developmental

24 disabilities who currently reside at the Rainier Residential Habilitation Center in Buckley, Washington,

25 on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; and People First of Washington, Inc.; The Arc

26

27

Class Action Complaint Civil Rights

28 Page - 2

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521 /Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

of Washington State, Inc.; the Autism Society of Washington; and the Washington Protection and

2 Advocacy System, Inc., in its capacity as the designated protection and advocacy agency for those

Washington citizens who have mental and physical disabilities.

1.2. The representative plaintiffs and the other members of the plaintiff class that they represent

(hereinafter "Class Plaintiffs") are residents of the Rainier Residential Habilitation Center (hereinafter "Rainier"), a large state institution for individuals with mental retardation and developmental

disabilities. Specifically, plaintiffs bring this action to redress the unconstitutional, unlawful, unsafe, 8 and unprofessional conditions imposed on them by the defendants under color of state law.

Approximately four hundred fifty persons with mental retardation and developmental disabilities

10 currently reside at Rainier.

11

1.3. Rainier is a dangerous place to live. Many members of the plaintiff class have been and

12 continue to be subjected to abuse, neglect, injury, and unnecessary physical and chemical restraint. In

13 addition, Rainier and the defendant state officials responsible for the conditions at Rainier routinely 14 deprive the plaintiff class of liberty and fundamental human rights in violation of their rights under the

15 Constitution and laws of the United States.

16

1.4. By this action, the plaintiffs seek to enforce the constitutional and statutory rights of those

17 individuals with mental retardation and developmental disabilities currently residing at Rainier to

18 receive their habilitation, vocational, and other services and supports in integrated settings and in

19 accordance with current professional standards.

20

1.5. The plaintiff class' need for habilitation, vocational training, and other supports and

21 services require placement in small, community-based programs where their individual developmental

22 and daily living needs can be met. However, the defendants deny the plaintiffs these services because

23 of the plaintiffs' perceived severe disabilities, complex medical conditions, and challenging behaviors.

24

1.6. The defendants' attitudes on the severity and complexity of the individual class members'

25 I disabilities, medical conditions, and behaviors are based, in large part, on plaintiffs' prolonged

26 Class Action Complaint -
2 ' Civil Rights
28 II p a g e _ 3

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

1 institutionalization at Rainier, as well as the defendants' failure to meet their federal statutory and

2 regulatory obligations to place, monitor, and discharge the members of the plaintiff class to alternative

3 non-institutional programs.

4

1.7. The defendants have failed to properly assess the plaintiff class' skills and abilities, in

5 contravention of the requirements of the federal laws and regulations governing the provision of

6 habilitation and active treatment to individuals with mental retardation and developmental disabilities.

7

1.8. The acts and omissions ofthe defendants have violated the rights of the plaintiff class under

8 the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; Title II of the Americans with

9 Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12131, st sea,, (hereinafter "ADA"); Section 504 of the

10 Rehabilitation Act of 1973,29 U.S.C. § 794, ej ggg. (hereinafter "Section 504"); and the Social Security

11 Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1396, elssa. (hereinafter "SSA").

12
Jurisdiction and Venue 13
2.1. This action arises under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to redress the deprivation, 14
under color of state law, of the plaintiffs' rights, privileges and immunities secured by the Constitution 15
and laws of the United States. The rights which plaintiffs seek to redress are guaranteed by the First and 16
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as 29 U.S.C. §§ 720 and 794, 42 17
U.S.C. §§ 1396, 1396a, 1396d, and 12131.
18
2.2. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 133 l(a), 1343(3) & (4), and 1367 as 19
this action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and seeks injunctive and other 20
equitable relief under acts of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights. 21
2.3. This Court also has authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 & 2202 to enter declaratory 22
judgments declaring the rights and other legal relations of parties to the action, as well as 42 U.S.C. § 23
1983. 24
2.4. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) as all of the parties reside in the State of 25
Washington and plaintiffs' claims for relief arise within this state. 26

27

Class Action Complaint Civil Rights

28 Page - 4

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

1

Parties

2

A. Plaintiffs

3

3.1. The plaintiff People First of Washington, Inc. (hereinafter "People First"), a nonprofit

4 corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Washington, is a state wide self-advocacy

5 organization governed entirely by people with developmental disabilities. More than one thousand

6 Washington citizens are members of People First through its thirty-three chapters and support groups

7 located throughout Washington. People First maintains its main administrative office at 932V4 Sixth

8 Street in Clarkston, Washington.

9

3.2. People First's members include individuals with disabilities who currently live in state

10 institutions, residential facilities, and nursing homes, including Rainier. People First believes that all

11 of its individual members could live in their local communities if appropriate habilitation programs and

12 other support services were available to them.

13

3.3. People First's purpose, for which it expends its resources, are as follows:

14

a. To promote the philosophy liiat everyone, no matter what disability he or she has or

its severity, has the same basic civil rights and responsibilities;

15

b. To advocate and defend the rights of persons with disabilities in the areas of

16

employment, education, housing and transportation; and

17

c. To provide a way for persons with disabilities to express and remedy their concerns

and enhance their well-being.

18

3.4. To advance these goals, People First and its members advocate for legislation to enable

19

those Washington citizens with disabilities to live more independently. Its members travel around the

20

state teaching people with disabilities about self-advocacy and their legal rights and responsibilities at

21

regularly scheduled local, regional, and statewide conferences, meetings, and programs. People First

22

provides leadership and self-advocacy training, and fosters community awareness through the volunteer

23

service activities of its members. Its individual members also represent the interests of Washington's

24

citizens with disabilities by serving on regional, state, and national committees, including, but not

25

limited to: the Managed Care Feasibility Work Group, the Developmental Disabilities Council for the

26

27 Class Action Complaint -
Civil Rights
28
Page - 5

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

State of Washington, and the Statewide Advisory Committee for Developmental Disabilities.

3.5. People First International was founded in 1974 by residents of the Fairview Training

Center, a state institution for persons with mental retardation in Oregon. In discussing the selection of

a name for their new organization, one of the founding members said, "Why not call ourselves People

First, because we want to be known as people first before we're known for our handicaps?" After that,

they formed People First organizations in many other states, including Washington. These organizations

share a common purpose — to support their members' right to speak for themselves, make their own

decisions, and know how to exercise their rights as citizens, including their right to live in their home

communities.

10

3.6. People First has many individual members who reside at the Rainier. These individual

11 members, who actively support the goals and purposes of People First, are individuals who are directly

12 harmed by the actions and inactions of the defendants, as set forth and more fully described in

13 paragraphs 4.1 through 5.12 below.

14

3.7. Plaintiff James Campbell (hereinafter "Campbell"), who was born on June 2,1972, was

15 first diagnosed as having mental retardation when he was a child. Since December 1,1983, when he

16 was just eleven years old — and for the last thirteen years — Mr. Campbell has continuously resided and

17 has been unnecessarily institutionalized at Rainier.

18

3.8. Dennis Campbell, who is a resident of Vancouver, Washington, brings this action on behalf

19 of James Campbell in his capacity as James Campbell's next friend. Dennis Campbell, who is a member

20 of People First, is familiar with James Campbell.

21

3.9. James Campbell resides at PAT E / Shasta House, a residential unit at Rainier for men and

22 women with developmental disabilities.

23

3.10. James Campbell is a capable man with good communication skills who has been labeled

24 as moderately retarded. He has repeatedly stated that he wants to leave Rainier and live in a normal

25 home in the community. However, because of the defendants' disparate discharge policies and

26
Class Action Complaint -
27 Civil Rights 28 Page - 6

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

discriminatory development of community-based services, the defendants have denied James Campbell

the individualized habilitation programs and services he needs.

3.11. James Campbell has little opportunity to model appropriate social skills or to learn how

to act in the community. Instead, he is regularly exposed to persons whose social skills and

inappropriate behaviors are at least as problematic as his own.

3.12. James Campbell is not receiving adequate habilitation at Rainier. James Campbell and the

individuals in his residential unit have little or no choice about when to wake up and go to bed, what to

eat, or what to do from day to day. On average, plaintiff James Campbell receives less than two hours

of programming per day, which is neither adequate nor appropriate for his needs. James Campbell's

10 limited habilitation program does not constitute active treatment according to accepted professional

11 standards.

12

3.13. James Campbell lacks meaningful employment training opportunities at Rainier. He

13 participates in an inadequate and segregated workshop at Rainier, where much of his "vocational

14 training" amounts to repetitive and monotonous tasks, interrupted by extended periods of "dead time"

15 when he has nothing to do. This "program" is the only "employment" opportunity available to James

16 Campbell and the vast majority of his fellow Rainier residents.

17

3.14. James Campbell could receive all of his habilitation, vocational, and attendant services in

18 the community. However, he remains at Rainier because of barriers caused by the defendants'

19 development and operation of a community service system that discriminates against him because of

20 his disabilities and prevents his successful discharge. These barriers include, but are not limited to, the

21 defendants' failure to develop adequate habilitation programs for persons living in the community; their

22 failure to develop appropriate supported employment and other day services for persons living in the

23 community; their failure to develop adequate residential and behavioral support services for persons

24 living in the community; and their failure to provide adequate staff development training and technical

25 assistance available to those people who work in this state's community service system.

26
Class Action Complaint -
27 Civil Rights
28 page. 7

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

3.15. Since James Campbell's admission to Rainier, no one has developed or implemented an

appropriate discharge plan. To date, contrary to professional judgement, plaintiff James Campbell has

never been placed in a supervised community-based program and placement appropriate to meet his

needs.

3.16. Although plaintiff James Campbell could live in the community with appropriate

habilitation, vocational training, and support services, he experiences on a daily basis the harmful and

unlawful conditions described in paragraphs 4.1 through 5.12 herein and below. Because of the

defendants' discriminatory policies and practices, he has no alternative to Rainier.

3.17. The failure to provide James Campbell with the necessary support services has resulted in

10 direct and immediate injury to him, has caused him physical and emotional harm, and has been the direct

11 cause of his deterioration and regression. This failure is unreasonable, constitutes a substantial departure

12 from accepted professional standards, and needlessly deprives James Campbell of his liberty.

13

3.18. Plaintiff Chris Olson (hereinafter "Olson"), who was born on June 11, 1954, was first

14 diagnosed as having mental retardation when he was a child. Since March 2,1970, when he was just

15 fifteen years old — and for the last twenty-six years — Mr. Olson has continuously resided and has been

16 unnecessarily institutionalized at Rainier.

17

3.19. Diane Grace, who is a resident of Seattle, Washington, brings this action on behalf of Chris

18 Olson in her capacity as Chris Olson's next friend. Ms. Grace, who is a member of People First, is

19 familiar with Chris Olson.

20

3.20. Mr. Olson resides at PAT B / Meyer House, a residential unit at Rainier for men and

21 women with developmental disabilities and behavior problems.

22

3.21. Chris Olson has multiple disabilities and is labeled as severely retarded. He does not say

23 many words clearly and has difficulty with the activities of daily living. Mr. Olson engages in

24 stereotypical, perseverative behaviors that are the result of his long institutionalization at Rainier. With

25 the appropriate supports, Mr. Olson could live in a normal home in the community. However, because

26

27

Class Action Complaint Civil Rights

28 Page - 8

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521 /Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

of their discriminatory discharge policies and practices with respect to community-based habilitation

services and supports, the defendants have denied Mr. Olson the individualized habilitation programs

and services he needs.

3.22. Mr. Olson has little opportunity to model appropriate social skills, behaviors, or to learn

how to act in the community. He is exposed without respite to persons whose social skills and

inappropriate behaviors are at least as problematic as his own.

3.23. Chris Olson is not receiving adequate habilitation at Rainier. Mr. Olson and the individuals

in his residential unit have little or no choice about when to wake up and go to bed, what to eat, or what

to do from day to day. On average, plaintiff Olson receives less than two hours of programming per day,

10 which is neither adequate nor appropriate for his needs. Mr. Olson's limited habilitation program does

11 not constitute active treatment according to accepted professional standards.

12

3.24. Mr. Olson has sustained numerous and frequently unexplained injuries while in the care

13 of the defendants that have required medical treatment. During 1995 and 1996, these injuries have

14 included, but have not been limited to: lacerations to the area around his eyes, bruising about his body,

15 abrasions, and severely torn finger and toe nails.

16

3.25. Despite Mr. Olson's injuries, incident reports were not done to explain how or when his

17 injuries were sustained, as required by Rainier's policies and regulations, except in limited instances.

18 Defendants also failed to conduct any investigation into how these injuries were sustained, in spite of

19 Rainier policies and regulations that require such investigations when residents are injured.

20

3.26. Chris Olson lacks meaningful employment training opportunities at Rainier. He

21 participates in a limited, inadequate, and segregated workshop at Rainier, where much of his "training"

22 amounts to repetitive and monotonous tasks, interrupted by extended periods of "dead time" when he

23 has nothing to do. This "program" is the only "employment" opportunity available to Mr. Olson and

24 the vast majority of his fellow Rainier residents.

25

3.27. Mr. Olson could receive all of his habilitation, vocational, and individual support services

26

27

Class Action Complaint Civil Rights

28 Page - 9

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

in the community. He remains at Rainier because the defendants refuse to consider him for placement

in the community because they believe he requires specialized supports — supports that they have chosen

to provide only at Rainier.

3.28. The community service system operated by the defendants discriminates against Chris

Olson and precludes his appropriate discharge from the segregation of Rainier to an appropriate

community placement. Plaintiff Olson could receive all of his habilitation, vocational, and attendant

services in the community were it not for the barriers caused by the defendants' community service

system. These barriers include, but are not limited to, the defendants' failure to develop adequate

habilitation programs for persons living in the community; their failure to develop appropriate

10 supported employment and other day services for persons living in the community; their failure to

11 develop adequate residential and behavioral support services for persons living in the community; and

12 their failure to provide adequate staff development training and technical assistance available to those

13 people who work in this state's community service system.

14

3.29. Since Mr. Olson's admission to Rainier, no one has developed or implemented an

15 appropriate discharge plan. To date, plaintiff Olson has never been placed in a supervised community-

16 based program and placement appropriate to his needs.

17

3.30. Although Chris Olson could live in the community with appropriate habilitation, vocational

18 training, and support services, he experiences on a daily basis the harmful and unlawful conditions

19 described in paragraphs 4.1 through 5.12 herein and below. Because of the defendants' discriminatory

20 policies and practices, he has no alternative to Rainier.

21

3.31. Defendants' failure to provide Chris Olson with the necessary support services he requires

22 has resulted in direct and immediate injury to him, caused him physical and emotional harm, and has

23 been the direct cause of his deterioration and regression. This failure is unreasonable, constitutes a

24 substantial departure from accepted professional standards, and needlessly deprives Mr. Olson of his

25 | liberty.

26
Class Action Complaint Civil Rights
^° Page - 10

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521 /Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

3.32. Plaintiff Houston Williams (hereinafter "Williams"), who was born on February 14,1949,

was first diagnosed as having mental retardation when he was a child. Since February 21,1956, when

he was just seven years old - and for the last forty years - Mr. Williams has continuously resided and

has been unnecessarily institutionalized at Rainier.

3.33. Steven Cassio, who is a resident of Bonney Lake, Washington, is the duly-appointed legal

guardian for Houston Williams, pursuant to an order of the Superior Court for Pierce County,

Washington. Steven Cassio brings this action on behalf of Houston Williams, in his capacity as his

ward's next friend and legal guardian.

3.34. Until recently, Houston Williams resided at PAT C/2015 Quinault Court, a residential unit

10 at Rainier for men with severe developmental disabilities and challenging behaviors. Last month,

11 Rainier staff, over the objections of his legal guardian, moved Mr. Williams to PAT C / 1040 Quinault,

12 another residential unit at Rainier. In both of his Rainier cottages, Mr. Williams has had little

13 opportunity to model appropriate behavior or to learn how to act in the community. Instead, he is

14 exposed without respite to persons whose behaviors are at least as problematic as his own.

15

3.35. Houston Williams has limited communication skills, but understands others when they

16 speak to him. He can walk, feed himself, and make his choices and preferences known to others. Mr.

17 Williams has been labeled as severely retarded and behaviorally impaired. While the defendants have 18 repeatedly stated that Houston Williams is appropriate for community placement if they provide him

19 with extensive supports, and have acknowledged that his challenging behaviors are substantially

20 decreased when he is able to go into the community on visits, defendants have not helped Mr. Williams

21 and his legal guardian in finding an appropriate community placement.

22

3.36. Mr. Williams and the other men in his residential unit have little or no choice about when

23 to wake up and go to bed, what to eat, or what to do from day to day. Plaintiff Williams was placed at

24 Rainier because of his severe developmental disabilities and challenging behavior, and because the State

25 ofWashington and the defendants' predecessors only offered services to people with his disabilities at

26 _ Class Action Complaint -
2 7 Civil Rights
^ Page - 11

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

institutions like Rainier.

3.37. Mr. Williams hardly ever leaves Rainier, and spends most of his time in his residential unit.

Defendants provide him with minimal activities and opportunities for socialization outside the

4 I institution.

3.38. Defendants have repeatedly used and continue to use a variety of inappropriate and

discriminatory restraints to address Mr. Williams' challenging behaviors, including the use of

antipsychotic medications and other unspecified manual restraints, despite the fact that these

interventions have had little effect on decreasing the frequency or severity of Mr. Williams' challenging

behaviors.

10

3.39. Although Houston Williams has the potential to acquire adaptive, functional life skills

11 focused on the maintenance of a home, meal-preparation, and personal care skills, he cannot learn these

12 skills at Rainier because it cannot provide him with an appropriate, community-based habilitation

13 program.

14

3.40. Mr. Williams is not receiving even minimally adequate habilitation at Rainier. He lives

15 in a barren residence with stark, institutional furniture, a television blaring for most of the day, and little

16 else to do. During his forty years at Rainier, Mr. Williams has not had access to meaningful activities,

17 vocational training, or the opportunity to learn real-life skills in the natural environments where those

18 skills can be practiced, which has resulted in a loss of his individual skills and competencies. Mr.

19 Williams' current habilitation program does not constitute active treatment according to accepted

20 professional standards.

21

3.41. The defendants have denied Houston Williams community placement because of his

22 challenging behaviors. With proper habilitation, support, and training in a small community home,

23 however, these challenging behaviors could be decreased or eliminated. Further, in an appropriate

24 community-based program and placement, Mr. Williams could also receive much richer and more

25 meaningful habilitation, consistent with his individual needs and thejudgment of qualified professionals.

26
Class Action Complaint -
27 Civil Rights 28 Page-12

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

3.42. Since Mr. Williams' admission to Rainier, no one has developed or implemented an

appropriate discharge plan. To date, contrary to professional judgement, plaintiff Williams has never

been placed in a supervised setting appropriate to his individual needs.

3.43. Houston Williams experiences on a daily basis the harmful and unlawful conditions

described in paragraphs 4.1 through 5.12 below. Because the defendants have limited their community

services to persons who do not have severe developmental disabilities and challenging behaviors, Mr.

Williams remains confined and segregated at Rainier.

3.44. Due to the length and circumstances of his institutionalization, Houston Williams will

require appropriate clinical, programmatic and habilitative services to support bis placement in a

10 community-based program for an extended period.

11

3.45. If Mr. Williams is discharged from Rainier without an appropriate habilitation program and

12 the necessary supports and services required to meet his individual needs, there is a significant likelihood

13 that he will be deprived of his liberty by his reinstitutionalization in the future.

14

3.46. The failure to provide Houston Williams with the necessary support services and has

15 II resulted in direct and immediate injury to him, has caused him physical and emotional harm, and has

16 been the direct cause of his deterioration and regression. This failure is unreasonable, constitutes a

17 substantial departure from accepted professional standards, and needlessly deprives Mr. Williams of his

18 liberty.

19

3.47. Plaintiff Peter Bohnke (hereinafter "Bohnke"), who was born on July 31,1940, was first

20 diagnosed as having mental retardation when he was a child. Since July 24,1947, when he was just six

21 years old — and for the last forty-nine years — Mr. Bohnke has continuously resided and has been

22 unnecessarily institutionalized at Rainier. He has no family who is involved in his life and activities at

23 Rainier.

24

3.48. John Domenic Revello, who is a resident of Seattle, Washington, brings this action on

25 II behalf of Peter Bohnke in his capacity as Peter Bohnke's next friend. Mr. Revello is familiar with Peter

26

27

Class Action Complaint Civil Rights

28 Page-13

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

Bohnke.

3.49. Mr. Bohnke resides at PAT C / 2015 Quinault Court, a residential unit at Rainier for men

with severe developmental disabilities and challenging behaviors. Mr. Bohnke has little opportunity to

model appropriate behavior or to learn how to act in the community. He is exposed without respite to

persons whose behaviors are at least as problematic as his own.

3.50. Due to the severity of his developmental disabilities, Peter Bohnke has limited

communication skills, as well as difficulty with activities of daily living. He engages in stereotypical,

perseverative behaviors that are the result of his long institutionalization. The irony is that because of

the disabilities that were created in part by prolonged institutionalization and inadequate habilitation,

10 plaintiff Bohnke is now considered inappropriate for community living. The defendants refuse to

11 consider him for community living on the ground that he requires specialized supports — supports that

12 they have chosen to provide only at Rainier.

13

3.51. Peter Bohnke and the other men in his residential unit have little or no choice about when

14 to wake up and go to bed, what to eat, or what to do from day to day. Mr. Bohnke was placed at Rainier

15 because of his severe developmental disability and challenging behavior, and because the State of

16 Washington and the defendants' predecessors only served people with his disabilities at institutions like

17 Rainier.

18

3.52. Mr. Bohnke never leaves Rainier, and rarely leaves his residential unit, mostly because the

19 defendants have frequently restrained him twenty-four hours a day for weeks at a time with a variety of

20 inappropriate and discriminatory physical and chemical restraints, as well as aversive therapies. These

21 restraints and therapies have included: physical restraints, antipsychotic medications, manual holds,

22 locking helmets, and prolonged five-point prone restraints, along with other forms of restraint and

23 therapies, despite the fact that these interventions have had little effect on decreasing the frequency or

24 severity of Mr. Bohnke's challenging behaviors.

25

3.53. During his forty-nine years at Rainier, Mr. Bohnke has had little or no opportunity to

26

27

Class Action Complaint Civil Rights

II

" Page - 14

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

practice vocational skills, recreational skills, or community living skills. His environment is barren,

monotonous, and unpleasant. He is currently condemned to live from day to day without hope or

companionship. Mr. Bohnke's current habilitation program is provided less than two hours a day and

does not constitute active treatment according to accepted professional standards.

3.54. Despite the fact that Peter Bohnke could live in the community with appropriate

habilitation, vocational training, and support services, he experiences on a daily basis the harmful and

unlawful conditions described in paragraphs 4.1 through 5.12 below. Because the defendants have

discriminated in the development and operation of their community services against persons who they

perceive as having severe developmental disabilities and challenging behaviors, he has no alternative

10 to Rainier.

11

3.55. Plaintiff Dawn Lavery (hereinafter "Lavery"), who was born on June 24,1956, was first

12 diagnosed as having mental retardation when she was a child. Since February 26,1973, when she was

13 just 16 years old — and for the last twenty-three years — Ms. Lavery has continuously resided and has

14 been unnecessarily institutionalized at Rainier. She has no family who is involved in her life and

15 activities at Rainier.

16

3.56. Emerson Fosner, who is a resident of Tacoma, Washington, is the duly-appointed legal

17 guardian for Dawn Lavery, pursuant to an order of the Superior Court for King County, Washington.

18 Emerson Fosner brings this action on behalf of Dawn Lavery in his capacity as his ward's next friend

19 and legal guardian.

20

3.57. Ms. Lavery resides at PAT B / Tyee House, a residential unit at Rainier for men and

21 women with severe developmental disabilities and challenging behaviors. Ms. Lavery has little

22 opportunity to model appropriate behavior or to learn how to act in the community. She is exposed

23 without respite to persons whose behaviors are at least as problematic as her own.

24 H

3.58. Due to the severity of her developmental disabilities, Dawn Lavery has limited

25 communication skills, as well as difficulty with activities of daily living. She engages in stereotypical,

26

27

Class Action Complaint Civil Rights

28 Page-15

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

perseverative behaviors that are the result of her long institutionalization. The irony is that because of

the disabilities that were created in part by institutionalization and inadequate habilitation, plaintiff

Lavery is now considered inappropriate for community living. The defendants refuse to consider her

for community living on the ground that she requires specialized supports — supports that they have

chosen to provide only at Rainier.

3.59. Plaintiff Lavery lives in a barren residence with stark, institutional furniture, a television

blaring for most of the day, and little else to do. Ms. Lavery and the other individuals in her residential

unit have little or no choice about when to wake up and go to bed, what to eat, or what to do from day

to day. Plaintiff Lavery was placed at Rainier because of her developmental disability and challenging

10 behaviors, and because the State of Washington and the defendants' predecessors served people with

11 her disabilities at institutions like Rainier.

12

3.60. Ms. Lavery rarely leaves her residential unit, mostly because the defendants have

13 frequently restrained her twenty-four hours a day for weeks at a time with a variety of physical and/or

14 chemical restraints. During her twenty-three years at Rainier, Ms. Lavery has had little or no

15 opportunity to practice vocational skills, recreational skills, or community living skills. She is currently

16 condemned to live from day to day without hope or companionship.

17

3.61. During her twenty-three years at Rainier, Ms. Lavery has not had access to meaningful

18 activities, vocational training, or the opportunity to learn real-life skills in the natural environments

19 where those skills are practiced. Her environment is barren, monotonous, and unpleasant. On average,

20 she receives less than two hours of programming per day, which is neither adequate nor appropriate for

21 her needs. Ms. Lavery's current habilitation program does not constitute active treatment according to

22 accepted professional standards.

23

3.62. In an attempt to address Dawn Lavery's challenging behaviors, Rainier staff has

24 continually and regularly used a variety of inappropriate and discriminatory physical and chemical

25 restraints, as well as aversive therapies, including the use of antipsychotic medications and other

26
Class Action Complaint -
27 Civil Rights
28 Page - 16

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

unspecified manual restraints. These restraints and therapies have included: physical restraints, cold

water baths, antipsychotic medications, visual occlusion, manual holds, locking helmets, and wheelchair

restraints, along with other forms of restraint and therapies.

4

3.63. Ms. Lavery's current Behavioral Treatment Plan (BTP) does not allow for the use of

5 chemical or physical restraints. Her BTP calls for the use of an aversive therapy known as "visual

6 occlusion."

7

3.64. "Visual occlusion" therapy, as implemented by Rainier staff, consists of "blocking" Ms.

8 Lavery's vision with a screen and/or a ski mask placed over her head and eyes to address her self-

9 injurious behavior. This "visual occlusion" therapy is to be used for approximately thirty seconds or

10 until Ms. Lavery stops the alleged self-injurious behavior, but not beyond thirty minutes.

11

3.65. Despite the fact that physical restraints are not to be used on Dawn Lavery, on or about

12 August 18, 1994, she was placed in a wheelchair restraint for "medical" reasons for three days.

13

3.66. On or about August 3,1995, Dawn Lavery's hand was severely injured in a paper shredder

14 which resulted in her being placed in wrist to wrist restraints.

15

3.67. On or about February 21, 1996, Rainier staff used a manual hold on Dawn Lavery on at

16 least three separate occasions, despite the fact that this type of restraint is not permitted and is

17 specifically prohibited by her BTP because it causes her self-injurious behaviors to worsen.

18

3.68. On or about March 15, 1996, Rainier staff restrained Dawn Lavery with a locked helmet,

19 despite the fact that this type of restraint is not permitted by her BTP and there was no authorization

20 from her legal guardian for this type of restraint.

21

3.69. On or about March 17, 1996, Rainier staff restrained Ms. Lavery with a locked helmet on

four separate occasions, despite the fact that this type of restraint is not permitted by her BTP. Further,

23 her legal guardian had not authorized Rainier to use this type of physical restraint.

24

3.70. Despite the fact that Dawn Lavery could live in the community with appropriate

25 habilitation, vocational training, and support services, she experiences on a daily basis the harmful and

26
Class Action Complaint -
27 Civil Rights
Page • 17

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street Suite 506 Seattle. Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

unlawful conditions described in paragraphs 4.1 through 5.12 below. Because the defendants have

discriminated in the provision of community services against persons who have severe developmental

disabilities and challenging behaviors, Ms. Lavery remains confined and segregated at Rainier.

3.71. Plaintiff John Mann (hereinafter "Mann"), who was born on November 18,1942, was first

diagnosed as having mental retardation when he was a child. Since December 15,1947, when he was

just five years old — and for the last forty-eight years — Mr. Mann has continuously resided and has been

unnecessarily institutionalized at Rainier. He has no family who is involved in his life and activities at

Rainier.

3.72. Resa Hayes, who is aresident of Spokane, Washington, brings this action on behalf of John

10 Mann in her capacity as John Mann's next friend. Ms. Hayes, who is a member of People First, is

11 familiar with John Mann.

12

3.73. John Mann resides at PAT B / Oakley House, a residential living unit at Rainier for men

13 and women with severe developmental disabilities and challenging behaviors. Mr. Mann has little

14 opportunity to model appropriate behavior or to learn how to act in the community. He is exposed

15 without respite to persons whose behaviors are at least as problematic as his own.

16

3.74. Mr. Mann hardly ever leaves Rainier, and spends most of his time in his residential unit.

17 Defendants provide him with minimal activities and opportunities for socialization outside the

18 institution.

19

3.75. John Mann lives in a barren residence with stark, institutional furniture, a television blaring

20 for most of the day, and little else to do. Mr. Mann and the other individuals in his residential unit have

21 little or no choice about when to wake up and go to bed, what to eat, or what to do from day to day. 22 John Mann was placed at Rainier because of his developmental disability and challenging behaviors, 23 and because the State of Washington and the defendants' predecessors served people with his disabilities 24 at institutions like Rainier.

25

3.76. Due to the severity of his developmental disabilities, John Mann has limited

26
Class Action Complaint •
27 Civil Rights
28 Page - 18

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

communication skills, as well as difficulty with activities of daily living. He engages in stereotypical,

preservative behaviors that are the result of his institutionalization. The irony is that because of the

disabilities that were created in part by institutionalization and inadequate habilitation, John Mann is

now considered inappropriate for community living. The defendants refuse to consider him for

community living on the ground that he requires specialized support— support that they have chose to

provide only at Rainier.

3.77. Mr. Mann is not receiving adequate habilitation at Rainier. During his forty-eight years

at Rainier, he has not had access to meaningful activities, vocational training, or the opportunity to learn

real-life skills in the natural environments where those skills are practiced. On average, Mr. Mann

10 receives less than two hours of programming per day, which is neither adequate nor appropriate for his 11 needs. Mr. Mann's current habilitation program does not constitute active treatment according to

12 accepted professional standards.

13

3.78. John Mann rarely leaves his residential unit, mostly because the defendants have frequently

14 and extensively restrained him with a variety of physical and/or chemical restraints. During his time at

15 Rainier, he has had little or no opportunity to practice vocational skills, recreational skills, or community

16 living skills. Mr. Mann's environment is barren, monotonous, and unpleasant. He is currently

17 condemned to live from day to day without hope or companionship.

18

3.79. In an attempt to address Mr. Mann's behaviors, Rainier staff has continually and regularly

19 used various forms of physical and chemical restraints, as well as aversive therapies, since his admission.

20 These restraints and therapies have included, but not been limited to: body wraps, specialized jump suits,

21 prone restraints, manual holds, Haldol, Lithium, Mellaril, and other physical restraints and therapies.

22

3.80. John Mann has a severe cardiac condition that exacerbates the risk of harm he must endure

23 when placed in restraints. Despite defendants' acknowledgment of this condition, Mr. Mann's

24 behavioral support plan currently allows for the use of manual restraints when he is sitting on a couch 25 || or mat, as well as a restrictive jumpsuit restraint. In the recent past, his behavioral support plan has also

26
Class Action Complaint •
27 Civil Rights
28 Page - 19

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

allowed for the use of prone restraint, body wraps, and other physical and chemical restraints, despite

his heart condition.

3.81. Despite the fact that John Mann could live in the community with appropriate habilitation,

vocational training, support services, he experiences on a daily basis the harmful and unlawful

conditions described in paragraphs 4.1 through 5.12 below. Because the defendants have discriminated

in the provision of community services against persons who have severe developmental disabilities and

challenging behaviors, he remains confined and segregated at Rainier.

3.82. Plaintiff The Arc of Washington State, Inc. (hereinafter "Arc"), a nonprofit corporation

duly organized under the laws of the State of Washington in 1936, is this state's oldest and largest

10 membership organization for individuals with developmental disabilities, their families, friends, and

11 persons providing services to them. Arc's administrative office is located at 1703 East State Avenue

12 in Olympia, Washington. It has chapters in counties across the state.

13

3.83. In 1936-37, the Arc drafted and successfully lobbied for the legislation that created the

14 state's second institution for persons with developmental disabilities, now known as Rainier, because

15 their sons and daughters with mental retardation were then excluded by law from attending their local

16 public schools. Later, it supported the creation of the Fircrest Residential Habilitation Center in Seattle,

17 as well as the Yakima Valley Residential Habilitation Center in Selah, Washington. For decades, the

18 Arc provided the mainstay of support in Olympia for appropriations to support and expand such

19 institutions. Gradually, however, the members of plaintiff Arc became convinced that such segregated

20 facilities could not provide individuals with developmental disabilities with minimally adequate living,

21 training, working, and recreational supports and opportunities.

22

3.84. Among the Arc's purposes is the education of individuals with disabilities, their families,

23 and the public on issues affecting persons with developmental disabilities. The Arc's membership

24 includes individuals who are at risk of institutionalization at Rainier due to their developmental

25 disabilities.

26
Class Action Complaint -
27 Civil Rights
Page - 20

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

3.85. The Arc devotes considerable resources to support and promote the development of

community-based habilitation programs. Further, the Arc seeks to render defendants aware of the

competencies and potential of persons with severe developmental disabilities, and to ensure that all such

persons, including the children of its parent members, are not forced into segregated institutional centers,

which always retard, and often defeat, their personal growth and development.

3.86. Defendant's actions and inactions adversely effect the Arc's organizational purposes and

the interests of its members, as set forth and more fully described in paragraphs 4.1 through 5.12 below.

8

3.87. Plaintiff Autism Society of Washington (hereinafter "Autism Society") is a local chapter

of the Autism Society of America, which provides advocacy, support, and education on issues affecting

10 persons with autism and their families and friends. The Autism Society's members include individuals

11 with autism and other similar disabilities, as well as their families and friends. The Autism Society's

12 main administrative office is located at 15230 Fifteenth Avenue N.E. in Seattle, Washington.

13

3.88. Many of the Autism Society's members include individuals who currently live in

14 institutions and nursing homes, and who could live in their local communities if there were appropriate

15 habilitation programs and support services available to them. The Autism Society's membership

16 includes individuals who are at risk of institutionalization at Rainier due to their developmental

17 disabilities.

18

3.89. The Autism Society's purpose, among others, is to empower and support the self-advocacy

19 efforts of individuals with developmental disabilities, including those individuals who are currently

20 residing in institutions and nursing homes but could live in their local communities in non-institutional

21 alternatives.

22

3.90. Defendants' actions and inactions adversely affect the Autism Society's organizational

23 purposes and the interests of its members, as set forth and more fully described in paragraphs 4.1

24 through 5.12 below.

25

3.91. Plaintiff Washington Protection and Advocacy System, Inc. (hereinafter "WPAS"), a

26
Class Action Complaint -
27 Civil Rights 28 Page - 21

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

nonprofit corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Washington, is the statewide

protection and advocacy system designated by the Governor of the State of Washington to protect and

advocate for the legal and civil rights of those citizens of this state who have physical or mental

disabilities, pursuant to the "Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act", 42 U.S.C.

§ 6000, et ssg.; the "Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illnesses Act", as amended,

42 U.S.C. § 10801, stseq.; and RCW 71A.10.080. WPAS maintains its offices at 1401 East Jefferson

Street, Suite 506, in Seattle, Washington.

3.92. As the duly designated statewide protection and advocacy system for individuals with

mental and physical disabilities in the State of Washington, WPAS has the authority and responsibility

10 to pursue legal, administrative, and such other appropriate remedies or relief as may be necessary to

11 protect and advocate for the rights of those persons within the State of Washington who are or who may

12 be eligible for treatment, services, or habilitation due to their developmental, mental, or physical

13 disabilities. 42 U.S.C. §§ 6000, et sea., and 10801, et sea., 29 U.S.C. § 794e.

14

3.93. Defendants' actions and inactions adversely affect WPAS' organizational interests and the

15 legal rights of its clients, as set forth and more fully described in paragraphs 4.1 through 5.12 below.

16

B. Class Action Allegations

17

3.94. The individual plaintiffs, their legal guardians, next friends, and People First, Arc, Autism

18 Society, and WPAS bring this action pursuant to FRCP 23(a) and (b)(l)(A) & (B), 23(b)(2), and

19 23(b)(3) on behalf of themselves and all of the other persons similarly situated.

20

3.95. The plaintiff class consists of all persons who: (1) presently reside at Rainier; (2) may be

21 admitted or are at risk of being admitted to Rainier; or (3) have been discharged from Rainier to group

22 homes, nursing facilities, intermediate care facilities for individuals with mental retardation and

23 developmental disabilities, and other community living arrangements funded, operated, or licensed by 24 the defendants after October 1, 1991.

25

3.96. There are approximately four hundred and fifty-nine individual class members who

26
Class Action Complaint -
27 Civil Rights 28 Page - 22

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

presently reside at Rainier. Approximately thirty individuals have been discharged from Rainier during

the past five years. The number of class members who may be admitted or are at risk of

institutionalization at Rainier in the future is not known to plaintiffs at the present time.

3.97. The defendants' actions, inactions, policies, and practices have deprived the members of

the plaintiff class of their rights under federal laws. The plaintiffs seek for themselves and all of the

6 other members of the class declaratory and injunctive relief to eliminate those actions, inactions,

policies, and practices of the defendants, and to require defendants to create, develop, and establish

standards and procedures that do not arbitrarily deny to plaintiffs and the class those rights guaranteed

by federal law.

10

3.98. That plaintiffs' complaint is proper as a class action pursuant to FRCP 23 because:

11

a. the class is so numerous as to make joinder of all members impracticable;

12

b. there are substantial questions of law and fact common to the entire class;

13

c. the claims of the representative plaintiffs are typical of the class they seek to represent

in that they are all individuals who, because of their disabilities, have bteen, are, or in the

14

future will be at risk of placement at Rainier, and who, as a direct result of such placement,

have, are, or will suffer from one or more of the violations of rights enumerated in this

15

complaint. The named plaintiffs herein do not in this action seek individual damages,

which are specifically reserved for other actions these plaintiffs may wish to pursue; 16
d. the plaintiffs' attorneys have the legal resources and experience necessary to protect

17

all of the members of the class, and the representative plaintiffs will adequately and fairly

represent the interests of the class;

18

e. the defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby

19

making appropriate final injunctive and declaratory relief with respect to the class as a

whole;

20

f. the prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the class might establish

21

incompatible standards of conduct for the defendants in this action; and

22

g. separate actions would create a risk of adjudications with respect to individual

members of the class that would as a practical matter be dispositive of the interests of the

23

other members not parties to the adjudications or substantially impair or impede their

ability to protect their interests.

24

3.99. The questions of law and fact common to the entire plaintiff class include, but are not

25

limited to:

26

Class Action Complaint Civil Rights
2 8 p a g e . 23

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

a. Are the conditions at Rainier unconstitutional, unlawful, unsafe, and unprofessional as alleged herein?

b. Does the plaintiffs' segregation at Rainier violate, among other rights, plaintiffs' right to: equal protection of the laws; habilitation in the least separate, most integrated community setting; freedom of association; freedom of expression; the right to participate in public services, programs, and activities receiving federal assistance regardless of the severity of the plaintiffs disabilities, medical conditions, and behavioral challenges?

c. Do the defendants have an obligation under the Constitution and laws of the United States to provide necessary services to the representative plaintiffs and all of the other members of the class they represent in the least separate, most integrated community setting?

d. Have the defendants subjected the residents of Rainier to unnecessary abuse or neglect? 9 e. Have the defendants deprived the residents of Rainier of adequate and humane care,
habilitation, medical care, vocational training, and support services?

11

f. Have the defendants failed to develop and deliver a professionally designed,

consistently and aggressively implemented program of training, treatment, habilitation, and

12

other services to each Rainier resident to enable her or him to function with the greatest

self-determination and independence possible?

13

g. Have the defendants subjected the residents of Rainier to unnecessary and

14

inappropriate physical and chemical restraint?

15

h. Have the defendants deprived the residents of Rainier of their rights to secure

appropriate community-based habilitation and services in order to prevent needless

16

hospitalization and thus ensure their continued liberty?

17

i. Have the defendants deprived the residents of Rainier of their rights to humane and

adequate habilitation and treatment designed to prevent further deterioration and to restore

18

functioning sufficient to allow class plaintiffs to return to their home communities and

ensure their liberty?

19

20

C. Defendants

21

3.100. Defendant Rainier is a state-owned and state-operated institution for individuals with

22 mental retardation and developmental disabilities located at 2120 Ryan Road in Buckley, Washington.

23 Rainier is classified as an Intermediate Care Facility for the Mentally Retarded (hereinafter "ICF/MR")

24 under Title XIX of the SSA, 42 U.S.C. § 1396, et sea., and receives federal funds under said Act.

25

3.101. Defendant Michael Lowry (hereinafter "Lowry") is sued in his official capacity as the

26
Class Action Complaint -
27 Civil Rights
28 Page - 24

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

Governor for the State of Washington. Defendant Lowry's administrative office is located in Olympia,

Washington, and his office mailing address is as follows: Governor's Office, Legislative Building, AS-

13, P.O. Box 4002, Olympia, Washington 98504.

3.102. Under Article III of the Washington Constitution, defendant Lowry is the state's chief

executive officer, and in his official capacity, has, pursuant to Article III, § 5 of the Washington

Constitution, and RCW 43.06.010, supreme executive power to execute the laws of the State of

Washington. Defendant Lowry, in his official capacity, is charged with, and, at all times relevant herein,

has exercised overall responsibility, supervision, and control over the operation of all of the State of

Washington's institutions, departments, and agencies.

10

3.103. Among his official duties as governor, defendant Lowry, pursuant to RCW 43.17.020,

11 selects and appoints, subject to Senate confirmation, the individual who heads the Washington

12 Department of Social and Health Services, the state agency that operates Washington's Residential

13 Habilitation Centers (hereinafter "RHC"), including Rainier. Further, as governor, defendant Lowry

14 reviews and approves budget requests made by the Secretary concerning the Washington Department

15 of Social and Health Services and its state mental health and developmental disability programs and

16 services, which are then submitted to the Legislature for funding. The Washington Department of Social

17 and Health Services' budget determines the level of staff and programmatic resources available for: (1)

18 the state's community-based mental health and developmental disability programs and services; (2) the

19 state's institutional programs and services at the RHCs, including Rainier; and (3) the state's capital

20 outlays for physical plant improvements at the aforesaid institutions. Defendant Lowry, acting in his

21 official capacity, has reviewed and approved from time to time various policy proposals submitted by

22 the Secretary of the Washington Department of Social and Health Services concerning the role and

23 scope of the department's community-based and institutional programs and services, including those

24 provided at Rainier.

25

3.104. Defendant Washington Department of Social and Health Services (hereinafter "DSHS"),

26
Class Action Complaint -
27 Civil Rights 28 Page - 25

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521 /Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

is the only state agency in the state of Washington authorized to administer the Medicaid program under

Title XIX of the SSA, 42 U.S.C. § 1396, gt seg. DSHS' responsibilities include, but are not limited to,

(1) the review of the needs and level of care required by all persons in intermediate care facilities for

people with mental retardation and developmental disabilities in order to insure that appropriate

placements are made; and (2) the identification of persons inappropriately placed in such facilities

instead of community-based programs and placements. DSHS is also responsible for ensuring that

Medicaid-certified facilities in Washington, including Rainier and other ICF/MR institutions and

facilities, meet the minimum standards for certification for the receipt of Medicaid funds pursuant to the

provisions of Title XIX of the SSA.

10

3.105. Defendant Lyle Quasim (hereinafter "Quasim") is sued in his official capacity as Secretary

11 of DSHS. Defendant Quasim's administrative office is located in Olympia, Washington, and his office

12 mailing address is as follows: DSHS, State Office Building, OB-2, Fourteenth & Jefferson Streets,

13 Olympia, Washington 98504.

14

3.106. Defendant Quasim, in his official capacity, is charged with, and at all times relevant herein

15 has, pursuant to RCW 43.20A.050, exercised general responsibility, supervision, and oversight of the

16 policies, practices, and operations of DSHS. Defendant Quasim's responsibilities include the care,

17 custody, and welfare of persons with developmental disabilities who are confined in or receive services

18 at those state facilities and programs that are funded, operated, licensed, or supervised by DSHS for the 19 receipt of Medicaid funds pursuant to Title XIX of the SSA.

20

3.107. Defendant Quasim, in his official capacity as the Secretary of DSHS, is charged with and

21 has at all times relevant herein, pursuant to RCW 43.20A.060, exercised overall responsibility for the

22 policies, practices, and operations of the Washington Division of Developmental Disabilities of DSHS.

23 Specifically, he is generally responsible for the promulgation, administration, supervision, and control

24 of the rules, regulations, and laws related to the provision and coordination of all of the institutional and

25 community-based developmental disability clinical programs, medical services, mental health services,

26
Class Action Complaint -
27 Civil Rights
28 Page - 26

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

residential services, and habilitation services offered by the State of Washington through DSHS, to those

citizens of the State of Washington who are entitled to receive such services, including those programs

and services offered at Rainier.

3.108. Defendant Washington Division of Developmental Disabilities of DSHS (hereinafter

DDD") is charged with executing the primary functions of the State of Washington pertaining to

persons with mental retardation and developmental disabilities. DDD does this through the

administration, operation, and oversight of the five state-operated Residential Habilitation Centers

(hereinafter "RHC"), including Rainier, and by contracting with private and public agencies to provide

residential and other services to persons with mental retardation and developmental disabilities in

10 community-based settings.

11

3.109. That DDD has the statutory authority, with the approval of the governor, to make grants

12 to counties and nonprofit corporations for the construction, maintenance, and operation of mental

13 retardation and developmental disability facilities, programs, and services, or to provide such services

14 directly. DDD also has the duty and authority to make and enforce rules for the efficient and lawful

15 operation of such services.

16

3.110. Defendant DDD is responsible for ensuring that each individual receiving services and/or

17 residing in a mental retardation and developmental disability program or facility licensed and funded

18 by DSHS through DDD has an opportunity for a fair hearing before an impartial decision-maker before

19 that person can be discharged from such program or facility.

20

3.111. Defendant Norm Davis (hereinafter "Davis") is sued in his official capacity as the Director

21 of DDD. Defendant Davis1 administrative office is located in Olympia, Washington, and his office

22 mailing address is as follows: DSHS/DDD, State Office Building, OB-2, P.O. Box 45310, Olympia,

23 Washington 98504-5310.

24

3.112. Defendant Davis, in his official capacity, is charged, pursuant to RCW 71 A. 12.010, with

25 the responsibility for the policies, practices, and operations of DDD. Defendant Davis' responsibilities

26
Class Action Complaint -
27 Civil Rights
Page - 27

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

include the care, custody, and welfare of persons with developmental disabilities who are confined in

or receive services at those facilities and programs that are funded, operated, licensed, or supervised by

DSHS through DDD. Defendant Davis' responsibilities also include the promulgation, administration,

supervision, and control of the rules, regulations, and laws related to the development, provision, and

coordination of all of the institutional and community-based habilitation programs and services offered

by the State of Washington through DSHS and DDD to those citizens of the State of Washington who

are entitled to receive such services.

3.113. Specifically, defendant Davis is directly responsible for the admission and transfer of

residents of Washington's mental retardation and developmental disability institutions, facilities, and

10 programs, including Rainier, and for the provision of the care, maintenance, and treatment provided to

11 the people who reside in such facilities. Further, he is responsible for making alterations at such

12 facilities, including Rainier, as required for the proper treatment and well-being of the residents.

13 Defendant Davis is also responsible for ensuring that the institutional residents are placed in meaningful

14 employment and other activities of therapeutic and rehabilitative benefit to the residents, and that the 15 residents have appropriate opportunities for physical exercise and recreation.

16

3.114. Defendant Leanna Lamb (hereinafter "Lamb"), is sued in her official capacity as the

17 Superintendent of Rainier. Defendant Lamb's administrative office is located in Buckley, Washington,

18 and her office mailing address is as follows: Rainier, Administration Building, 2120 Ryan Road,

19 Buckley, Washington 98321.

20

3.115. Defendant Lamb, in her official capacity, exercises overall responsibility for the day-to-day

21 operation and control of Rainier and the care, custody, and treatment provided to those individuals who

22 are confined at Rainier, and as such is responsible for enacting and enforcing the policies and practices

23 of said facility.

24

3.116. Defendant Washington Office ofFinancial Management (hereinafter "OFM") is responsible

25 for the long-range financial planning, budgeting, and oversight of expenditures by the departments,

26
Class Action Complaint -
27 Civil Rights
28 Page-28

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206)324-1783 !

agencies, and officers of the State of Washington. OFM assists DSHS and DDD in the planning and

establishment of Medical Assistance programs in the State of Washington and is responsible for all

financial matters related to Medical Assistance.

3.117. Defendant Gary Robinson (hereinafter "Robinson"), is sued in his official capacity as the

Acting Director of OFM. Defendant Robinson's administrative office is located in Olympia,

Washington, and his office mailing address is as follows: OFM, 300 Insurance Building, P.O. Box

43113, Olympia, Washington 98504-3113.

3.118. Defendant Robinson, in his official capacity, is responsible for preparing the governor's

annual budget to the state legislature; for financial planning of the Medical Assistance programs in

10 Washington; for review and audit of the expenditure of funds by state agencies; for determining the

11 amount of reserve allotments; and for ensuring that program expenditures are maintained within

12 legislative appropriations, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 43.41.100. Before other departments,

13 agencies, and officers of state government are allowed to enter into contracts, defendant Robinson must

14 certify that there is a balance in the appropriation from which the contract obligation is to be paid.

15 Defendant Robinson is authorized to use the general reserve account of the state treasury to offset

16 revenue shortfalls for which other funds are not available.

17

3.119. In 1992 the defendants or, where applicable, their predecessors, were informed by the

18 Washington State Legislative Budget Committee (hereinafter "LBC") that it was commencing an

19 investigation into issues of legislative interest connected with the "downsizing" of Washington's state

20 institutions for people with developmental disabilities by moving residents to community settings.

21 Thereafter, the LBC conducted several comprehensive tours of Rainier with independent experts and

22 consultants who observed conditions at all of the state's institutions, including Rainier; interviewed

23 institutional and community service administrators, staff, and resident-clients; and examined records and

24 analyzed documents pertaining to staffing, injury, abuse, mortality, medications, and habilitation policies

25 I and practices.

26
Class Action Complaint -
27 Civil Rights
28 Page - 29

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

1

3.120. Based on that extensive investigation, the LBC concluded that the populations living in the

2 state's developmental disability institutions and community residential programs and services, generally

3 speaking, were not distinct in terms of problem behaviors, daily living skills, and needed services and

4 supports. The LBC's findings included, but were not limited to, the following:

5

a. Many of the current residents at state institutions could be supported successfully in

home and community-based placements;

6

b. Placement in home and community-based settings is most conducive to personal

7

growth and independence, and is generally more cost-effective than institutional care; and

8

c. Services provided in both community and institutional settings should be designed to

promote the acquisition of independent living skills and self-sufficiency.

9

3.121. The LBC notified the defendants or, where applicable, their predecessors, of these findings,

10

and of the remedial measures and resource allocations necessary to address these issues in a report dated

January 14, 1993. 12
3.122. At all times relevant herein, the defendants, in their official capacities, were and are under
13 an affirmative obligation to make their programs, services, and activities accessible to otherwise
14
qualified individuals with disabilities pursuant to Title II of the ADA and Section 504.

3.123. At all times relevant herein, the defendants, and each of them, knew or should have known 16
of the policies, practices, acts and conditions alleged herein. 17

18 Factual Allegations
19 A. How Plaintiffs came to Rainier
20 4.1. Washington's original institution for persons with mental disabilities, now known as
21 Western State Hospital, was organized during the territorial period. In 1874 Congress granted lands at
22 Steilacoom for "an asylum for the insane." Ch.98, 18 Stat. 29, part 3 (1874). In 1875 the territorial
23 legislature named the facility the "Hospital for the Insane in Washington Territory" and established a
24 board of trustees. Laws of 1875, pp. 83-89.
25 4.2. In 1886 the legislature authorized a "school for the deaf mute, blind and feeble-minded
26

Class Action Complaint -

27

Civil Rights

Page - 30

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

youth of Washington Territory." It was located at Steilacoom and called the School for Defectives.

In 1892 the superintendent praised the decision "to discriminate against the admission of epileptics,

paralytics, and profound idiots," whose entrance into the school would defeat its objectives. J. Laing,

A History of the Provision for Mentally Retarded Children in the State of Washington, Ph.D.

dissertation, Univ. of Washington 96 (1955).

4.3. During the first session of the new State Legislature, a statute was enacted that governed

not only the newly renamed Western Washington Hospital for the Insane, but also the hospital "now in

process of erection at Medical Lake, in Spokane county," to be called the Eastern State Hospital for the

Insane. Laws of 1889-90, pp. 482-95. In section 29 of the Act, the Legislature demonstrated that it

10 continued to discriminate against persons with mental retardation or other developmental disabilities,

11 by providing that:

12

No case of idiocy, imbecility, harmless chronic mental unsoundness, or acute mania apotu

shall be committed to the hospital for the insane; and whenever in the opinion of the

13

superintendent, after a careful examination of the case of any person committed, it shall be

satisfactorily ascertained by him that the party has been unlawfully committed, and that he or

14

she comes under the rule of exemptions provided for in this section, he shall have the authority

to discharge such person so unlawfully committed, and return him or her to the county from

15

which committed, at county expense.

16

4.4. The first Legislature also made segregated education compulsory for all deaf, mute, blind

17 or feeble-minded youth. Laws of 1889-90, pp. 497-98. Each county superintendent of schools was

18 ordered to report the names of such youth to the county commissioners, who were, in turn, required to

19 send such youth to the Washington School for Defective Youth (unless proof was provided that they

20 were being adequately educated at home).

21

4.5. In 1891 the Legislature authorized erection of a separate building for the "feeble-minded"

22 pupils of the Washington School for Defective Youth. Laws of 1891, chap. 101.

23

4.6. In 1907 a separate State Institution for the Feeble-Minded, now known as the Lakeland

24 Village Residential Habilitation Center, was organized at Medical Lake near Spokane, near what is now

25 Eastern State Hospital. In 1917 the Legislature changed its name to the State Custodial School. In 1924

26
Class Action Complaint -
27 Civil Rights 28 Page - 31

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

the superintendent attacked the word "School" in its title, since it gave false hope to parents that their

"hopelessly defective" children could be educated and then returned home. E; Bixler,

Superintendent's Report on the State Custodial School. Second Biennial Report of the Department of

Business Control, State of Washington. (1924).

4.7. In 1937 the Legislature authorized a second "Western" State Custodial School on the west

side of the Cascade Mountains at Buckley in rural Pierce County. Laws of 1937, chap. 10. That

institution, now known as the Rainier Residential Habilitation Center, was open to children and adults.

County superintendents of schools were required to apply for admission of all children between six and

twenty-one who:

10

. . . . by reason of defective intellect, are rendered unable to acquire an education and/or training

in the common schools, Provided. That they are free from loathsome or contagious diseases:

11

Provided also, that children who are idiotic, epileptic, or afflicted in any particular that renders

them unfitted for companionship with other children, may be segregated and admitted at the

12

State Custodial School located at Medical Lake . . . .

13 Section 8.

14

4.8. Adults under the age of fifty (50) could be committed to the Western State Custodial

15 School, using the same commitment procedure employed for insane persons, if they were:

16

. . . . determined to be feeble-minded and who are of such unoffensive habits as to make them

proper subjects for classification, education and discipline in an institution for defectives . . . ,

17

but no insane person or those who are properly subjects for county infirmaries, hospitals or

asylums, or cases of senile dementia shall be admitted to the Western State Custodial School.

18 Section 15.
19

4.9. Fircrest School, now Fircrest Residential Habilitation Center, was opened in 1958 on the

20

site of a former tuberculosis sanitarium north of Seattle for 200 "grossly handicapped children," 21
according to Rainier Superintendent Wesley D. White. 7 HOPE for Retarded Children 1 (1958). The

22

following year it received legislative authorization. Laws of 1959, chap. 31.

23 4.10. The population totals for those individuals residing at the State's institutions for persons
24

with mental retardation — Fircrest, Rainier, and its other Residential Habilitation Centers at Lakeland

25

Village, Yakima Valley, Frances Haddon Morgan, and Interlake ~ peaked at 4,197 in 1968 and began 26

Class Action Complaint -
27 Civil Rights 28 Page - 32

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521 /Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

to decline thereafter.

4.11. The representative plaintiffs and all of the other members of the class they represent are

3 institutionalized at Rainier because of the defendants' failure to serve persons with severe developmental

disabilities, physical disabilities, complex medical conditions, challenging behaviors, and other severe

disabilities in community-integrated programs and placements. A significant number of the class

plaintiffs were admitted to Rainier after their parents and families sought services in community-based

programs, but were denied such access to such programs because of the severity of their developmental

disabilities, physical disabilities, complex medical conditions, and/or challenging behaviors.

4.12. Other class members came to Rainier after being discharged or transferred from a

10 community-based group home program due to the severity of their developmental disabilities, complex

11 medical conditions, and/or challenging behaviors. To date, the defendants' have failed or refused to

12 prevent this practice or to ensure that group home residents are not discharged without adequate

13 procedural due process.

14

4.13. Many of the members of the plaintiff class were placed at Rainier because they were

15 initially classified, in accordance with the defendants' policies and practices of "ranking" people with

16 disabilities by their level of functioning. The defendants disproportionately consign persons classified

17 at the lowest level of functioning to institutions like Rainier rather than small community-based

18 programs and placements, despite the fact that persons with the most significant disabilities have the

19 greatest need for the individualized services and close personal attention that is only possible in such

20 small community-based programs and placements.

21

4.14. Before their placement at Rainier, the members of the plaintiff class and, where applicable,

22 their legal guardians, were not informed of any feasible alternatives available under the Medicaid Waiver

23 Program, nor were they given the choice of either institutional or community-based services.

24

4.15. Prejudice and stereotype continue to support the segregation of people with severe

25 I developmental disabilities, complex medical conditions, and/or challenging behaviors in institutions

26
Class Action Complaint -
27 Civil Rights
28 Page - 33

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

1 such as Rainier, away from their families, friends, neighbors and fellow citizens.

2
B. Harmful Conditions at Rainier
3 4.16. Rainier is a segregated institution located in a rural area outside the small town of Buckley,
4 Washington. All of the individuals residing at Rainier are further segregated from the local community,

as well as the communities where they once lived, solely because of the nature and severity of their 6
disabilities. 7
4.17. The conditions at Rainier are dangerous, and have caused and continue to pose an 8
immediate and great threat of harm to the individuals residing there. 9
4.18. Rainier is a "total institution" where habilitation programs, recreational activities, social 10
activities, and medical care services are provided on the same institutional grounds where its residents 11
eat and sleep. Rainier's self-contained character inhibits meaningful community involvement. Many 12
residents never leave the institution or their respective living units at all. 13
4.19. The vast majority of Rainier's residents spend their days waiting out the hours. Many of 14
those residents with physical handicaps sprawl in ill-fitting wheelchairs or carts. These individuals are 15
frequently parked in day rooms or hallways unattended, or are left alone in their rooms, unattended for 16
hours, with no stimulation or human contact except when they are changed and fed. Interaction between 17
staff and residents is minimal. 18
4.20. The physical environment at Rainier was designed for mass management and custodial 19
care. Its architecture cannot be adapted to the habilitative needs of persons with developmental 20
disabilities. Activity space is limited to "classrooms" that are only used during the residents' limited 21
"program hours" and to the day rooms attached to the residents' living units. These restricted spaces 22
and rooms are inadequate for habilitation and active treatment. 23
4.21. The living activity space at Rainier is dehumanizing. The facility's physical layout 24
encourages passivity and dependence rather than activity and growth. The environment is bare, 25
uncarpeted, devoid of warmth, individuality, or dignity. Living and sleeping areas are sparsely furnished 26

o _ Class Action Complaint 2 ' Civil Rights
^° Page-34

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

and do not contain age-appropriate furnishings associated with normal active living. Plaintiffs are

denied the developmental opportunities, the sensory and intellectual stimulation, and the comfort and

pleasure that community residents obtain from their usual surroundings and conveniences in homes,

schools, restaurants, work places and recreational facilities.

4.22. At best, the staff at Rainier provide bare custodial care. More often, they fail to provide

the attention necessary to safeguard the residents from deterioration, atrophy, physical injury and abuse.

4.23. In a representative case, Rainier staff have not provided plaintiff Peter Bohnke with

appropriate attention to safeguard him from deterioration, atrophy, and physical abuse. Specifically, Mr.

Bohnke has not been adequately protected by Rainier staff from self-injurious behaviors so that he no

10 longer has a substantial portion of his nose.

11

4.24. In another representative case, Rainier staff have not provided plaintiff Dawn Lavery with

12 appropriate attention to safeguard her from deterioration, atrophy, and physical abuse. Specifically, Ms.

13 Lavery has been restrained excessively throughout her residency at Rainier to the point where she had

14 been restrained to a wheelchair for such a long period of time that she lost the ability to walk. Ms.

15 Lavery must now use a walker to walk short distances and a wheelchair for long distances.

16

4.25. Defendants have created, fostered, and condoned conditions, policies, and practices at

17 Rainier that are unreasonable and directly contrary to professionally accepted standards of habilitation,

18 are anti-therapeutic, are emotionally debilitating, and have caused deterioration in the well-being and

19 self-esteem of many of the members of the plaintiff class.

20

4.26. An essential prerequisite of appropriate habilitation is a humane environment. At Rainier,

21 class plaintiffs are frequently subjected to treatment from direct care staff that is totally lacking in human

22 dignity and decreases their self-esteem. For example, members of the class are frequently transferred

23 from their residence to a completely different residence at times convenient to staff, with no prior

24 planning or notice to the individual residents or their legal representative, nor relationship to the

25 individual resident's needs.

26
Class Action Complaint -
27 Civil Rights 28 Page - 35

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

4.27. On information and belief, during 1995, the individual residents of the PAT C / 2025

Quinalt Court residence decided that they wanted to purchase a "big screen" television set for their

personal use and enjoyment. The residents, acting on their own and without staff support or supervision,

raised the necessary money through a variety of projects and activities, and purchased a "big screen"

television set for their residence. Shortly thereafter, without prior notice or explanation from staff, all

of the individual residents were moved to other residential units at Rainier. The "big screen" television

set remained at the PAT C / 2025 Quinalt Court residence, unable to be used by any of the residents who

8 purchased it.

9

C. Inadeouate Basic Care

10

4.28. Many of the plaintiffs' basic care needs are frequently ignored. Residents are often left

11 alone for hours.

12

4.29. In many residential units, staff ratios are inadequate to meet residents' basic care and

13 attendant support needs. Due to the inadequate staffing, some of the staff who are on duty commonly

14 ignore their clients and leave residents unattended.

15

4.30. Because of staff shortages at Rainier, staff often "float" to areas of the institution to which

16 they are not typically assigned and care for a large number of residents whom they do not know. This

17 practice creates an unacceptable high risk of harm.

18

4.31. In a representative case, on or about February 15, 1996, Daniel Coffield, a male resident

19 residing at Rainier was insufficiently supervised and therefore was able to leave the Rainier premises.

20 Mr. Coffield was found dead in a nearby field by a farmer the next day, having died as a result of his

21 exposure to the hostile weather conditions and his inability to take sufficient measures to protect himself

22 from same. Daniel Coffield was left unsupervised despite the fact that he had a history of running away

23 from the facility and the defendants were aware of this fact.

24

4.32. In another representative case, on or about December 15, 1995, Lorreta Westin, a female

25 resident was restrained with a "seatbelt"on a toilet and left unsupervised. While left alone, strapped to

26

27

Class Action Complaint Civil Rights

Page - 36

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

the toilet, Ms. Westin fell off the toilet and became unconscious. Rainier staff subsequently found her

catatonic on the bathroom floor with vomit beside her face, and no pulse or respiration. She died five

days later. She was strapped to the toilet and left unsupervised despite the fact that there was at least

one other documented instance where she had fallen off the toilet in August of 1995, and had a well

documented history of seizures, falling, and a need for attendant support and care.

4.33. Many of the direct care staff at Rainier lack the skills and training required to provide

adequate basic care to those members of the plaintiff class who have severe disabilities, complex

medical needs, and/or challenging behaviors.

4.34. For instance, during the evening of February 12,1996, Rainier staff placed plaintiff Peter

10 Bohnke in bed while he was wearing a locked helmet with the expectation that he would go to sleep. At

11 about 10:30 pm later that same evening, Rainier staff found plaintiff Peter Bohnke choking on his helmet

12 after he had tried to remove it with his hands. At that time, Mr. Bohnke's face was a bluish-purple color

13 and it was apparent that his circulation had been cut off and that he suffered a near strangulation. In 14 addition, one of his hands was injured when it became caught in the locking neck/chin strap while he 15 was attempting to remove the helmet.

16

4.35. In another example, plaintiff Dawn Lavery is frequently subjected to an aversive therapy

17 known as visual occlusion for hours at a time to address her challenging behaviors. This therapy, which

18 is provided for in Ms. Lavery's Behavioral Treatment Plan is to be used for approximately thirty seconds

19 or until she stops the alleged behaviors, but not beyond thirty minutes.

20 D. Inadequate Medical Care
21 4.36. Many members of the plaintiff class do not receive adequate and timely medical care or
22 dental care. Their health problems often go unrecognized and untreated.
23 4.37. Medical staffing at Rainier is grossly inadequate, thus depriving the residents of appropriate
24
and timely medical care that is consistent with currently accepted professional standards.
25
4.38. The number of adequately trained nurses at Rainier is insufficient to meet the current

26 Class Action Complaint -
Civil Rights
27 28 Page - 37

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521 /Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

residents' health care and psychological treatment needs.

4.39. Nursing staff are hired without adequate experience or training in caring for individuals

with severe developmental disabilities, complex medical conditions, and challenging behaviors, and do

not receive sufficient in-service training in these areas after they begin working at Rainier.

4.40. Due to the lack of properly trained and experienced medical staff, Rainier residents receive

inadequate preventive and ongoing care. Instead, medical care is characterized by "crisis management",

which inevitably causes a decline in the health of the residents. These problems could be avoided if the

defendants would hire properly trained and/or experienced physicians and nursing staff in sufficient

numbers to meet the medical needs of Rainier's current residents, or, in the alternative, insure that the

10 residents can access appropriate medical care in the community, in order to treat their ongoing health

11 care needs.

12

4.41. In a representative case, for the past several months Chad Phillips has had a large, infected

13 growth resembling an epithelial carcinoma tumor on his leg which caused him a great deal of discomfort

14 and fear. Mr. Phillips has a legal guardian who has abused him in the past, and this fact is known to the

15 Rainier staff. Mr. Phillips has repeatedly requested medical assistance to treat and/or remove this

16 growth, however, to date, Rainier staff have refused to provide Mr. Phillips with any form of medical

17 treatment because Mr. Phillips' legal guardian has refused to respond to their requests that he consent 18 to medical treatment for his ward. Consequently, this infected growth has not been treated and continues

19 to cause Mr. Phillips' great pain.

20

4.42. Seizure management is deficient at Rainier. Many residents with seizure disorders have

21 not been seen by a neurologist for several years. Some residents continue to receive anticonvulsant

22 medications long after they have stopped having seizures, while others receive grossly sub-therapeutic

23 doses of the anticonvulsant medications they need. The inconsistent recording of seizures by Rainier

24 staff seriously compromises the rationale for, and the efficacy of, prescribed medications and treatment.

25

4.43. Emergency medical care at Rainier is inadequate. The institution has no written guidelines

26
Class Action Complaint -
27 Civil Rights
28 Page - 38

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

prescribing when 911 should be called. Residents who need immediate emergency medical care are

transported from their living units to the medical building by non-medical personnel such as security

officers when they should be taken by emergency medical technicians directly to the hospital.

4.44. Psychiatric services at Rainier are seriously deficient. The psychiatric consultation

currently available at Rainier is limited to a part-time (.6 FTE) psychiatrist under contract, which is

completely inadequate to supervise and monitor the care of the hundreds of Rainier residents who are

receiving psychoactive medications or require intensive behavioral supports due to their complex

conditions and challenging behaviors.

4.45. Defendants' failure to adequately monitor the effects of these psychoactive medications

10 and the failure to monitor implementation of individual treatment plans is dangerous to residents. It

11 greatly enhances the risk that psychoactive medications and physical restraints will be used instead of

12 active treatment and non-aversive behavioral intervention strategies.

13

4.46. In a representative case, plaintiff Peter Bohnke, suffered several seizures as a result of the

14 antipsychotic medication, Clozaril, that had been prescribed for him by a Rainier psychiatrist's order.

15 Finally, on or about April 9,1996, Mr. Bohnke, suffered from agranulocytosis as a result of his reaction

16 to the Clozaril that he was still taking pursuant to the same psychiatrist's order. Agranulocytosis is an

17 acute disease in which the white blood cell count drops to extremely low levels. As a result of this

18 condition, Mr. Bohnke had to be hospitalized in the Rainier infirmary. After a prolonged delay, the

19 Clozaril was finally discontinued.

20

4.47. Rainier staff members often present conflicting data about residents to the psychiatrist that,

21 in turn, may lead to inappropriate prescriptions and administration of psychoactive medications.

22

4.48. Rainier's procedures for tracking medication side-effects is similarly deficient. This

23 absence compounds the risk of harmful side-effects and jeopardizes the rights and liberty of those class

24 members who are unnecessarily medicated. Many of Rainier's current residents exhibit visible signs

25 of the negative side-effects resulting from inappropriate prescriptions and excessive administration of

26
Class Action Complaint -
27 Civil Rights
Page - 39

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

psychoactive medications.

4.49. Medical care and services provided to the residents of Rainier are inadequate and

inconsistent with their identified needs and abilities, and with accepted standards of professional

practice.

4.50. Medical care and services provided to the residents of Rainier are distinctly different, less,

and far more segregated when compared with the medical care and services provided to individuals with

developmental disabilities in the community.

4.51. The significant lapses in the medical care and services provided to residents of Rainier are

unacceptable. They compromise the plaintiffs' long-range outlook and create an undue risk of physical

10 harm and loss of life.

11 E. Excessive Injury and Abuse
12 4.52. Residents' safety at Rainier is constantly at risk. The rate of injury is alarmingly high.
13 Many of the injuries are of unknown cause and were unobserved at the time they occurred.
14
4.53. In congregate care settings such as Rainier, residents with maladaptive behaviors will hurt 15
other residents. This risk is severe at Rainier, where residents suffer injuries and assaults on a regular 16
basis and are at serious risk of harm in their own living units and throughout the institution. 17
4.54. The defendants do not make reasonable professional attempts to prevent injury at Rainier. 18
Some residents push, hit and bite other residents, often causing injury serious enough to require stitches 19
or loss of teeth, in plain view of staff. 20
4.55. The lack of trained staff, non-implementation of individual programs, and the almost 21
complete lack of activity or stimulation in the units contributes significantly to the high rate of injury 22
and death. 23
4.56. Rainier does not conduct the analysis needed to prevent recurrence of avoidable injuries. 24
Without adequate reporting of data on causes and patterns of injuries, it is impossible to know how to 25
prevent them. 26

Class Action Complaint Civil Rights
Page - 40

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

4.57. The defendants have failed to protect Rainier residents from physical abuse and neglect.

4.58. For example, during February 1996, Daniel Coffield, a male resident residing at Rainier,

was insufficiently supervised, due to the defendants' failure to insure that there was sufficient direct care

staff to meet the needs of the institution's residents, thus allowing Mr. Coffield to leave his residential

unit and the Rainier grounds without the knowledge of his residence's direct care staff. Mr. Coffield

was found dead in a nearby field by a farmer the next day. Mr. Coffield was left unsupervised and

allowed to "wander off', despite the fact that he had a history of running away from the facility and the

Rainier staff was aware of this fact.

9

4.59. Verbal abuse of residents is widespread at Rainier. Staff uses abrupt, verbal commands

10 to communicate with residents; often, they scream at residents.

11

4.60. Staff reporting of abuse or neglect is not adequately monitored or supervised at Rainier.

12 Some staff use intimidation to prevent other staff from reporting such incidents. In a representative case,

13 when plaintiff Peter Bohnke choked on his locked helmet while in bed on February 12,1996 and almost

14 died, Rainier staff did not even complete an incident report, as is required by the policies of DSHS and

15 DDD, as well as Rainier.

16

4.61. Resident abuse investigations are cursory, and many potential incidents of abuse are never

17 investigated, in violation of DSHS and Rainier policies and regulations. Those investigations that are

18 carried out typically conclude with a finding that the allegation is not substantiated, even in cases in

19 which the evidence suggests that abuse did occur.

20

4.62. Neglect of residents at Rainier is common. Residents are left for extended periods in soiled

21 clothes or engaging in self-injurious behavior unattended with no staff intervention. For example,

22 during December 1995, Loretta Westin was restrained with a "seat belt" on a toilet and left

23 unsupervised. While left alone strapped to the toilet, Ms. Westin fell off the toilet and became

24 unconscious. Sometime later, Rainier staff found her catatonic, lying on the bathroom floor with vomit

25 beside her face, and no pulse or respiration. Ms. Westin died five days later. She was strapped to the

26

27

Class Action Complaint Civil Rights

28
Page - 41

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

toilet and left unsupervised despite the fact that she had fallen off the toilet at least once before (August

1995) and had a well-documented history of falling and seizure disorders.

4.63. Defendants' policies and practices to prevent abuse and neglect of Rainier residents, as well

as their staff training activities on prevention, are inadequate and inconsistent with accepted standards

5 of professional practice.

6
F. Inadequate Habilitation and Training
7 4.64. Habilitation is the teaching and training process required by persons with significant
8 disabilities so that they can reach their fullest potential in physical, social and mental growth.
9 4.65. Nearly all persons with significant disabilities have the capability, with proper education
10 and training, to learn some basic self-care skills: to participate in feeding, toileting, mobility and other

bodily needs. Most of Rainier's current residents could, with proper individualized instruction and 12
adaptations, more fully participate in their self-help functioning. 13
4.66. Active treatment is the formal process oftraining, treatment and care that must be delivered 14
to each Medicaid-eligible resident of in Intermediate Care Facility for the Mentally Retarded (ICF/MR). 15
Active treatment is a professionally designed, consistently and aggressively implemented program of 16
training, treatment, and other services to enable each ICF/MR resident to function with the greatest self17 11
determination and independence possible. 42 U.S.C. § 1396d(d); 42 C.F.R. § 483.440. 18
4.67. Active treatment requires the development and implementation of an individualized 19
program of intervention that is based upon and accountable to a comprehensive assessment of the 20
individual needs of the resident and an Individual Program Plan (IPP). Assigning an ICF/MR resident 21
to a generic activity (one that is generally available at a facility) is not active treatment unless the activity 22
fulfills an individual goal or objective that, in turn, addresses an assessed need of the individual resident. 23
42. C.F.R. § 483.440(a), (c)(3), (c)(4), (d)(3). 24
4.68. No long-term view for each individual resident leading to greater independence, 25
productivity and integration guides the program planning process for residents of Rainier. Long-term 26

Class Action Complaint -
27 Civil Rights 28 Page - 42

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

views are the basic first-step to the development of an adequate IPP.

4.69. At Rainier, IPPs are meaningless as a guide to habilitation. They frequently ignore the

residents' individual needs, even when those needs are obvious and substantial.

4.70. Rainier residents' IPPs fail to specify the specific interventions needed to support the

person toward independence. Their IPPs also fail to provide training in personal and functional skills

essential for privacy and independence.

4.71. Rainier residents' IPPs fail to identify the mechanical supports needed to achieve proper

body position, balance or alignment, as well as the reasons for each support and the situation in which

each is to be applied.

10

4.72. Residents' IPPs also fail to include opportunities for individual choice and self-

11 management. Class members are not offered reasonable treatment choices and alternatives. Individual

12 program plans do not reflect the expressed needs and opimons of the individual residents or her or his

13 family/legal guardian.

14

4.73. Most of the residents' IPP goals are "canned," not individualized. Plans and programs for

15 Rainier residents with different levels of ability are virtually identical.

16

4.74. The defendants do not revise and update Rainier residents' IPP plans and programs in light

17 of each resident's changing needs. Instead, their IPPs often remain unchanged from one year to the next.

18

4.75. The number of professional staff who work at Rainier is inadequate.

19

4.76. The professional staff who are employed at Rainier do not adequately monitor the delivery

20 of the programs they develop for class members. There is no effective method to ensure quality and

21 consistency of performance among direct care staff.

22

4.77. The direct care staff at Rainier have little knowledge of the persons for whom they have

23 care giving responsibility and thus are unaware of the significant issues in their lives.

24

4.78. The direct care staff at Rainier are not adequately trained to carry out their clients'

25 individual program plans and often do not even know the content of those plans. They do not

26
Class Action Complaint -
27 Civil Rights
28 Page - 43

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

understand their clients' needs nor the techniques required to teach them functional skills. They do not

know how to collect meaningful progress data.

4.79. At Rainier, accurate and meaningful data are not kept that can show progress, regression

or lack of change.

4.80. Rainier lacks the capability to deliver active treatment because the basic components of

active treatment — adequate professional staff, functioning interdisciplinary teams, adequate

assessments, professionally-designed individual habilitation plans, and direct care staff trained and

supervised in the delivery of each resident's plan — do not exist.

4.81. Rainier staff fail to carry out active treatment programs for class members, especially for

10 those individuals with severe physical disabilities, complex medical conditions, or challenging

11 behaviors. Class members spend only a fraction of their time in program-related activities.

12

4.82. Untrained, unsupervised, unfamiliar with their client's needs and abilities and unaware of

13 what is expected of them, Rainier staff often stand idle in a roomful of Rainier residents — or they

14 socialize with one another and ignore the residents.

15

4.83. Rainier residents receive little attention from staff, and rarely interact with anyone other

16 than a paid staff member. Most of their time is "dead time." They spend long periods "waiting" to go

17 from one activity to another, engaging in self-stimulation, rocking, milling around, dozing, or simply

18 doing nothing.

19

4.84. The interdisciplinary teams for each resident at Rainier do not have a sufficient array of

20 services available to make reasonable habilitation decisions that meet the needs of the individual

21 residents.

22

4.85. The amount of habilitation services offered to each class member at Rainier is grossly

23 inadequate to meet their individual needs or to qualify as active treatment. Most residents receive two

24 hours or less of planned habilitation each day.

25

4.86. The individual habilitation, vocational training, and behavior modification programs at

26
Class Action Complaint -
27 Civil Rights
Page -44

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facslmile: (206) 324-1783

Rainier depart substantially from current professional judgment, standards, and practices. They are

inappropriate to the learning needs of persons with severe intellectual disabilities.

4.87. Individual habilitation, vocational training, and behavior modification programs at Rainier

do not teach functional skills. Residents of Rainier are denied the opportunity to learn the skills of daily

living, such as dressing and tooth-brushing. In the living units, there are no materials that can be used

to teach age-appropriate, functional skills. Further, many of the objects and possessions that are found

in these environments are age-inappropriate.

4.88. Many Rainier residents are capable of going to the store, choosing and purchasing then-

food, cooking and serving meals and caring for their own living units, but they have no opportunity to

10 do so. Staff cook and clean while the residents remain idle.

11

4.89. The defendants do not provide the residents of Rainier with adequate individualized

12 adaptions to enable them to do things for themselves. Adaptive equipment is generally not available to

13 residents who need it in their education and living areas.

14

4.90. Communication and cooperation between cottage and adult education programs at Rainier

15 are virtually nonexistent.

16

4.91. Rainier residents' opportunities to interact with non-disabled persons and to spend time

17 outside the institution is extremely limited. Residents of the institutions receive little or no community-

18 based instruction. They have little or no opportunity to learn skills that will enable them to function in 19 their communities, such as acting and dressing appropriately in public, eating in a restaurant, going to

20 a movie, or crossing streets.

21

4.94. Recreational and leisure-time services, supports, and activities provided to the residents

22 of Rainier are inadequate and inconsistent with their identified needs and abilities, or with accepted

23 standards of professional practice.

24

4.95. Recreational and leisure-time services, supports, and activities provided to the residents

25 of Rainier are distinctly different, less, and far more segregated when compared with the recreational

26
Class Action Complaint -
27 Civil Rights
28 Page - 45

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521 /Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

and leisure-time services, supports, and activities provided to individuals with developmental disabilities

in the community.

4.96. Habitation at Rainier does not lead to greater independence, productivity, and social

integration. The quality of life of persons at Rainier is unacceptable because it offers no opportunity for

progress, participation in valued life activities, daily life style choices, privacy, safety, dignity or hope

for improvement.

4.97. The consequences of the defendants' failure to provide active treatment at Rainier, or to

carry out professional recommendations for placement elsewhere, are devastating to class members.

Their basic needs are neglected, their time is wasted, their bodies are constricted, they develop behavior

10 problems. Many residents, like plaintiff Lavery, lose basic skills such as the ability to speak and walk.

11 The defendants also deprive class members of the opportunity to live in a decent home and to build

12 relationships with non-disabled people. Their human potential is wasted.

13 G. Inadequate Behavior Management
14 4.98. Appropriate behavior management programs and supports are important components of
15 habilitation and active treatment. However, at Rainier, programs to deal with plaintiffs' behavioral
16 problems are seriously deficient. As a result, physical and chemical restraints are used as a substitute
17 for appropriate care and programs, with the consequence that residents' behavioral problems are
18
exacerbated and escalate. 19
4.99. Rainier residents do not have the environmental and physical supports to develop and 20
maintain positive behaviors. Without those supports, behavior management techniques are ineffective 21
and reduced to crisis intervention after harm and injury have already occurred. 22
4.100. Rainier does not properly conduct the assessments needed to develop effective programs 23
of behavioral support. Few, if any, functional behavioral analyses, which are the foundation for 24
developing adequate behavior intervention strategies, are conducted. 25
4.101. The defendants do not individualize behavior modification and behavior support programs 26

Class Action Complaint -
27 Civil Rights 28 Page - 46

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

for each resident. Programs for different persons are virtually identical. The programs are incomplete,

incoherent, and implemented inconsistently.

4.102. Documentation ofresidents' behavior is inaccurate, unreliable, inconsistent and incomplete.

Data collected on residents' behavioral and skill training programs are often identical from day to day,

giving the appearance that data is fabricated or recorded at the end of the day, week or month. The

meaningless quality of the data deprives professional staff of the information necessary to make

professional, appropriate and safe decisions regarding the residents' behavioral support needs.

4.103. Rainier staff does not have the skills and competence necessary to appropriately implement

behavioral interventions or to develop appropriate individual program plans. Staff intervention to

10 manage inappropriate behavior has no clear treatment objectives or positive long-term effect.

11

4.104. In place of adequate behavioral support, staff at Rainier practice emergency physical

12 restraint. This is an inherently risky procedure that places residents at serious risk of injury and death.

13

4.105. Without adequate programming and non-aversive behavioral intervention strategies to

14 teach positive behavior, Rainier residents are subjected to unnecessary restraint.

15

4.106. Psychoactive medication for control of behavior is used at Rainier outside of and not in

16 conjunction with individuals' IPPs and in violation of ICF/MR standards.

17

4.107. Rainier staff often physically restrains Rainier residents when the demands of their

18 individual habilitation needs or challenging behaviors become inconvenient to staff.

19

4.108. Defendants' failure to adequately develop, carry out, and monitor residents' behavior

20 support programs, as needed, is dangerous to residents. It greatly enhances the residents' risk of harm

21 and safety from Rainier staffs dependance on chemical and/or physical restraints due to the lack of

22 appropriate, non-aversive behavior support programs.

23

4.109. Rainier staff is often unfamiliar with the behavioral programs of the residents they

24 supervise.

25

4.110. In a representative case, plaintiff Dawn Lavery has repeatedly been subjected to aversive

26
Class Action Complaint -
27 Civil Rights 28 Page - 47

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

and anti-therapeutic forms of physical restraint in lieu of a properly implemented behavioral program

because the Rainier staff are unfamiliar with Ms. Lavery's behavioral program.

4.111. In a representative case, plaintiff Peter Bohnke has repeatedly been subjected to aversive,

anti-therapeutic, and prolonged forms of physical and chemical restraints in lieu of a properly

implemented behavioral program because the Rainier staff are unfamiliar with Mr. Bohnke's behavioral

program.

4.112. The inability of Rainier staff to deal with continual behavior problems results in more

8 frequent accidents and injuries to class members.

4.113. The behavioral modification and support practices at Rainier are inadequate to prevent or

10 reduce the incidence of abuse and injury to class members, or to ensure their freedom from undue

11 restraint.

12

4.114. Behavioral modification services, supports, and activities provided to the residents of

13 Rainier are inadequate and inconsistent with their identified needs and abilities, or with accepted

14 standards of professional practice.

15

4.115. Behavioral modification services, supports, and activities provided to the residents of

16 Rainier are distinctly different, less, and far more segregated when compared with the behavioral

17 modification services, supports, and activities provided to individuals with developmental disabilities

18 in the community.

19 H. Inadequate Physical Therapy and Physical Management
20 4.116. Many Rainier residents who have contractures or are non-ambulatory require physical
21
therapy and frequent positioning and repositioning in order to prevent skin breakdown and muscle and 22
joint deterioration. 23
4.117. Physical therapy services at Rainier are seriously deficient. Direct care and professional 24
staff are untrained in how to properly position, transfer or move residents. Programs are inadequate and 25
inconsistently implemented despite the residents' identified needs and their IPPs. 26

Class Action Complaint -

27

Civil Rights

Page - 48

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521 /Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

4.118. Rainier staff does not position residents properly for sitting, eating or other activities requiring proper body alignment or support.

4.119. Rainier staff place residents with physical disabilities in inappropriate positions or allow

them to remain in devices or postures that inhibit their ability to function and may even exacerbate their

deformities.

4.120. Therapeutic equipment helps to hold a developmentally disabled person's body in

alignment, prevent the progression of deformity and allow the person to move as normally as s\he can.

8 With proper individualized therapeutic equipment, persons with severe developmental disabilities,

severe physical disabilities and deformities, and severe and profound mental retardation can achieve

10 better alignment, better control of their muscles and limbs, and more normal and varied movements.

11 They can learn to sit in more upright positions that facilitate growth and learning.

12

4.121. Rainier does not provide adequate assistive devices to enable residents to walk, move, or

13 communicate. Individual residents who could walk and move with assistance are unreasonably

14 prevented from doing so and lose the ability to walk altogether. Individual residents who could learn

15 to express their needs, wants, and desires by using assistive devices are prevented from doing so.

16

4.122. Because of improper positioning and the lack of adequate physical therapy, residents'

17 deformities actually have increased through the loss of existing motor skills and physical abilities.

18

4.123. The lack of proper positioning and therapy has also led to osteoporosis, kidney stones,

19 digestive difficulties, circulatory problems, respiratory problems, and deterioration of normal function,

20 growth, sensory, and cognitive abilities.

21

4.124. Physical therapy services, supports, and activities provided to the residents of Rainier are

22 inadequate and inconsistent with their identified needs and abilities, and with accepted standards of

23 professional practice.

24

4.125. Physical therapy services, supports, and activities provided to the residents of Rainier are

25 distinctly different, less, and far more segregated when compared with the physical therapy services,

26
Class Action Complaint -
27 Civil Rights 28 Page - 49

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

1 supports, and activities provided to individuals with developmental disabilities in the community. 2
I. Inadequate Occupational Therapy 3
4.126. Occupational therapy is a component of habilitation and active treatment. Occupational 4
therapists help people with disabilities to master the functional activities of everyday living and meet
the demands of their environment.
4.127. Because occupational therapy is environmentally and contextually bound, the limitations
of the environment at Rainier limits the ability of occupational therapists at Rainier to train or teach.
Occupation therapists cannot adequately teach community living skills there because the environment
of the institution is completely unlike the community.
4.128. The occupational therapy services, supports, and activities provided to the residents of
Rainier are inadequate and inconsistent with their identified needs and abilities, and with accepted
standards of professional practice.
4.129. The occupational therapy leisure-time services, supports, and activities provided to the
residents of Rainier are distinctly different, less, and far more segregated when compared with the
recreational and leisure-time services, supports, and activities provided to individuals with
developmental disabilities in the community.

19

4.130. Communication services are an important part of habilitation and active treatment. If the

20 defendants do not provide people with developmental disabilities with adequate services and supports

21 to address their speech and language needs, they will regress.

22

4.131. Little speech and language therapy is conducted at Rainier. As a result, residents do not

23 receive the speech/language therapy and services they need to improve or maintain their ability to

24 understand others and communicate their needs. Augmentative devices to enable residents to

25 communicate are virtually nonexistent or are not in use. Staff do not attempt to communicate with

26
Class Action Complaint -
27 Civil Rights
28 Page - 50

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

residents in sign language, although some residents could benefit from learning sign language.

4.132. The defendants have failed to provide class members with assistive technology and other

methods through which many persons previously labeled severely and profoundly retarded have learned

to communicate and express ideas. As a result of this failure, coupled with the defendants' pervasive

denial of appropriate habilitation and vocational programs for class members, defendants have

diminished and failed to protect the capacity of class members to produce ideas by thinking and learning,

and to express those ideas through communication.

4.133. Speech and language therapy services, supports, and activities provided to the residents of

Rainier are inadequate and inconsistent with their identified needs and abilities, and with accepted

10 standards of professional practice.

11

4.134. Speech and language therapy services, supports, and activities provided to the residents of

12 Rainier are distinctly different, less, and far more segregated when compared with the speech and

13 language therapy services, supports, and activities provided to individuals with developmental

14 disabilities in the community.

15

K. Inadequate Vocational Training and Employment Opportunities

16

4.135. Individuals with severe intellectual disabilities and challenging behavior can participate

17

in productive work and work at real jobs in real workplaces.

18

4.136. With individualized systematic instruction and practice, most of the residents at Rainier

19

are able to learn and maintain vocational skills.

20

4.137. The opportunity to use and practice vocational skills in real work settings gives persons

21

severe disabilities not only with the benefits of earning wages and decreasing their dependence on public

22

support, but also provides the benefits of participating in the community in a valued role and developing

23

relationships with their co-workers, friends and other non-disabled people who are not paid to be with

24

them. Opportunities to work in real job settings allows for modeling and learning appropriate work

25

habits and social behaviors from non-disabled peers, something that is not possible at Rainier.

26

Class Action Complaint -

Washington Protection & Advocacy System

Civil Rights

1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506

Seattle, Washington 98370

Page - 51

Telephone: (206) 324-1521 /Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

4.138. There are no systematic attempts to develop true vocational programs for Rainier residents.

The programs called "vocational" at Rainier are not truly vocational because they do not lead to real

jobs, nor do they teach skills that can prepare the class plaintiffs for real jobs.

4.139. Meaningful opportunities for employment and vocational training at Rainier are severely

limited due to the inadequacies and limitations of Rainier's vocational training programs. Most of the

residents "lucky" enough to receive or participate in Rainier's vocational training program receive less

than two hours of vocational training per day. Approximately seventy-five per cent of the institution's

8 current residents do not participate in or receive any form of vocational training at Rainier.

4.140. Employment opportunities and vocational services, supports, and activities provided to the

10 residents of Rainier are inadequate and inconsistent with their identified needs and abilities, and with

11 accepted standards of professional practice.

12

4.141. Employment opportunities and vocational services, supports, and activities provided to the

13 residents of Rainier are distinctly different, less, and far more segregated when compared with the

14 employment opportunities and vocational services, supports, and activities provided to individuals with

15 developmental disabilities in the community.

16
L. Denial of Personal Choice. Dignity. Privacy, and Freedom of Association 17
4.142. The defendants routinely deprive Rainier residents of their dignity. Staff interact with them 18
either as children or objects to be managed. Rainier staff are allowed to treat residents with indifference, 19
and to abuse and neglect them without consequence. 20
4.143. Rainier residents are denied privacy because of the lack of adequate staff to help residents 21
with intimate bodily functions in private. 22
4.144. Rainier residents are routinely denied the basic rights of freedom of association and 23
communication, access to personal property, and participation in community activities. 24
4.145. The overwhelming majority of the members of the plaintiff class are denied an adequate 25
opportunity to participate in community activities. Some never leave the institution at all. 26

Class Action Complaint -

^'

Civil Rights

Page - 52

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521 /Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

4.146. Residents of Rainier experience acute social isolation. The living, learning and working

environments for the vast majority of residents are completely segregated from the community. Class

plaintiffs have little or no opportunity to acquire and practice life skills in typical settings, such as home,

social functions, or work sites in the community. They have little or no opportunity to make friends who

are non-disabled who are not paid staff.

4.147. Members of the plaintiff class are denied the right to make basic choices about their lives

that other citizens take for granted. They have no opportunity to make basic decisions for themselves.

8

4.148. The defendants have denied plaintiffs their right to freedom of association and expression

by restricting their access to community activities, friendships and visitation. Plaintiffs are denied the

10 opportunity to leave the facility to participate in outside community activities.

11

4.149. Rainier residents are denied the right to marry or to enjoy intimate relationships. The

12 policy and practice of the institution is to separate residents who wish to engage in sexual activity.

13

4.150. Rainier fails to monitor the residents' personal property or to protect it from theft.

14

4.151. Members of the plaintiff class are denied the right to attend religious services in the faith

15 and congregation of their choice. Most class plaintiffs do not have the choice of attending services off

16 campus because they are not provided with transportation to do so. In this regard, many class plaintiffs

17 are denied their right to freely exercise their respective religious beliefs, since the services offered at the 18 institution do not and cannot reflect the variety of class members' religious preferences.

19

4.152. Residents of Rainier spend nearly all their time in their living units and rarely, if ever, are

20 allowed to recreate out of doors.

21

4.153. Many of the members of the plaintiff class are denied the right to make the basic choices

22 about their lives that other citizens take for granted. They have no opportunity to learn to make 23 decisions for themselves.

24

4.154. The size, scale, isolation and segregation of Rainier present almost insurmountable

25 impediments to the exercise of basic rights. Residents are assigned to large groups within the institution

26
Class Action Complaint -
27 Civil Rights
28 Page - 53

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521 /Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

because of the logistical needs of the facility and cannot choose with whom to associate. This "group"

approach to life precludes choice for most residents.

4.155. More than half of the class members do not have legal guardians and therefore, defendant

Lamb and/or her designees make decisions on behalf of these individuals that has the effect of not only

resulting in a conflict of interest, but also of preventing those class plaintiffs from exercising their basic

rights.

7
M. Inadequate Discharge Planning 8
4.156. Post-discharge planning and follow-along services at Rainier are inadequate. Several 9
Rainier residents have been discharged from the institution without adequate effort to assure that they 10
will receive the proper support in an alternative community-based setting. As a result, these Rainier 11
residents who have been discharged are at risk of harm and of readmission to Rainier. 12
4.157. During the past five years, Rainier has discharged thirty residents, often without proper 13
planning and provision of the services needed to meet their individual needs. 14
4.158. The defendants have also discharged residents to general nursing facilities during the past 15
five years. Nursing facilities are considered by professionals and federal regulators to be totally 16
inappropriate settings for persons with developmental disabilities, since they do not provide the active 17
treatment or habilitation services needed by persons with those disabilities. The staffing ratio in a 18
typical nursing facility falls far short of the staffing needed to provide adequate care to persons with 19
significant developmental disabilities and challenging behaviors. 20

21

N. Needless Regression

22

4.159. Because of the conditions set forth in paragraphs 4.16-4.149 above, Rainier residents have

23 suffered regression with respect to their individual skills and abilities.

24

4.160. Members of the plaintiff class who were in good health now have serious, even life-

25 threatening health problems, including damaged lungs and difficulties with breathing and digestion.

26
Class Action Complaint -
27 Civil Rights
28 Page - 54

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

4.161. Due to the numbing effect of idleness and the institution's barren environment, many class

plaintiffs have lost cognitive skills, the ability to relate to others and to respond to their environment.

Other class plaintiffs have lost the ability to speak and communicate. From being denied the opportunity

to engage in the activities of daily living, many class plaintiffs have lost those skills altogether.

4.162. Custodial facilities like Rainier inherently deny the class plaintiffs the experiences,

6 interactions, and opportunities for growth and development that other members of society enjoy.

4.163. By segregating individuals they perceive as having significant disabilities from the rest of

8 the community and isolating them at Rainier with others who are disabled, defendants emphasize their

"difference" from the rest of society, stigmatizing them for life.

10

4.164. Individuals who are perceived as having significant disabilities, like other persons, vary

11 in their needs, wishes, and abilities. At different points of life, different activities and environments are

12 appropriate to each person. The environment of Rainier is designed for a single purpose — for custodial

13 care and mass management of persons with severe disabilities. Plaintiffs' confinement in this

14 environment deprives them of their individuality, the possibility of habilitation, and of living freely.

15

4.165. In an environment designed for mass management of large numbers of residents,

16 individuals who are perceived as having significant disabilities cannot receive the consistent individual

17 attention they need to grow, develop, and avoid regression. Persons who cannot communicate in words

18 need attention from others who know them well and understand their method of communication. Far 19 more than those who can speak articulately and whose disabilities are less severe, people with severe 20 disabilities and those who cannot speak need close personal attention that they can receive only in a 21 family-scale setting.

22

4.166. Individuals with complex needs fare the least well in large congregate settings. The more

23 complex the individual's needs, the smaller the setting must be, to enable staff to focus on and provide

24 consistent attention to the individual.

25

4.167. A congregate care facility like Rainier is not a natural environment. It is an artificial

26
Class Action Complaint -
27 Civil Rights 28 Page - 55

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

environment in which persons with intellectual disabilities cannot learn real life skills or functional

activities. In such an environment, persons with developmental disabilities cannot receive what their

specific learning needs require: the opportunity to learn real-life skills in the environments where those

skills are practiced.

4.168. Congregate care facilities, particularly where there are ten or more residents, are dangerous

because of a high risk that a resident will lose her own sense of personal identity and the reinforcing and

stimulating aspects of direct handling in a stable and family-like atmosphere.

8

4.169. The threat of abuse of individuals with disabilities is increased in an institutional setting

because the institution congregates a large number of people with dependent needs.

10

4.170. Individuals with challenging behaviors need "models" ~ persons without maladaptive

11 behaviors. When individuals with challenging behaviors are congregated together, as they are at Rainier,

12 there is an enhanced risk of learning maladaptive behaviors from the inappropriate behavior of others.

13

4.171. The size and scale of Rainier is an impediment to the consistent, effective delivery of

14 therapeutic activities and services. In a large setting, many more staff must be trained in consumers'

15 therapy and management programs than would be the case in a smaller setting.

16

4.172. Maintenance of employee resolve and standards is much more complicated at a congregate

17 care facility like Rainier than at a small program. Holding staff accountable to deliver residents' IPP

18 programs is difficult in a large facility. The complexity of the institutional bureaucracy and the lack

19 of staff accountability in a large congregate environment makes it difficult to get the simplest things

20 done.

21

4.173. Recruiting qualified professional staff to work at places like Rainier is tremendously

22 difficult. This is due not only to the low pay but to the administrative barriers that staff must overcome

23 to work efficiently in that environment.

24

4.174. Because so many persons with complex disabilities are congregated together at Rainier,

25 their needs overwhelm the staff. Congregating a large number of persons with complex needs greatly

26
Class Action Complaint •
27 Civil Rights 28 Page - 56

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

increases the difficulty for staff of finding activities that are interesting, stimulating or meaningful for

the residents. Conversely, however, when persons with significant disabilities spend time with persons

without disabilities, each non-disabled person serves as a natural teacher, and opportunities for learning

are multiplied.

4.175. The opportunity to share places with individuals who are not labeled "retarded" cannot be

provided to people with disabilities in institutions; it can only be provided in communities. The

opportunities and benefits of being around other people who do not have disabilities, including the

benefits of modeling and learning personal and community living skills, the opportunity to form

friendships with people who do not have disabilities, and the opportunity to gain the respect of members

10 of the community, are not available in institutions.

11

4.176. No matter how large the ratio of staff to clients in a large congregate care setting, such a

12 facility can never achieve the same favorable results as a normal home with support. Increasing the ratio

13 of staff to clients will only lead to a point of diminishing returns, at which one additional staff member

14 will not result in any additional interaction with the people who live there. However, when only one

15 staff person works with a very small number of residents, the quality of staff interaction with residents

16 improves greatly.

17

O. Ineffectiveness of Institutionalization

18

4.177. Rainier embodies the "medical" or "deficit" model of services to persons with

19

developmental disabilities. The "medical model" was a paradigm or framework for providing services

20

to people with disabilities that was current when most state institutions were built, but it is now obsolete.

21

That model was based on the premise that a person with a developmental disability should be placed in

22

a special setting whose purpose was to "treat" her or his disability or deficit. An aspect of the medical

23

model is the concept of the "continuum of care," that is, a continuum of residential settings from the

24

most restrictive to the least restrictive, from the most heavily staffed to the least heavily staffed.

25

According to the "medical model," a person was expected to move through the various stages of the

26

Class Action Complaint -
27 Civil Rights

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506

28 Page - 57

Seattle, Washington 98370 Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

continuum—from a state institution to a nursing home or large ICF/MR, to a small ICF/MR, to a group

home, to a semi-independent living arrangement and finally to a home of one's own -- as she or he

"improved" and met the exit criteria for each setting. According to this concept, people could move

from a restrictive congregate setting such as Rainier only by demonstrating their "readiness" for the next

level of the continuum. In vocational services, the medical model dictated that the person earned his

way along a similar "continuum of care": from a day activity center to a work activity center to sheltered

work and eventually to a real job only when her or his skills improved.

8

4.178. Research and experience have shown conclusively that the medical model and the

continuum of care are unnecessary and highly unsuccessful in preparing persons with developmental

10 II disabilities to live and work in more integrated and normal settings.

11

4.179. Research and experience have shown that institutions are not needed to serve persons with

12 developmental disabilities, including persons with complex needs such as challenging behaviors or

13 serious medical problems; that everyone can live in the community; and that people with developmental

14 disabilities are better off in integrated community settings than in large congregate settings based on the

15 "deficit" model.

16

4.180. Other states have reduced their admissions to state institutions to zero, demonstrating

17 conclusively that the institutional model and the continuum of care are unnecessary. Other states serve

18 people with disabilities as severe as those of the residents of Rainier in home and community-based

19 settings. Still other states have concluded explicitly that they do not need state mental retardation

20 institutions. The District of Columbia, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont have closed

21 their state institutions. Other states, including Colorado, Michigan, New Mexico, New York, and

22 Wyoming, have explicit or implicit plans to close all of their state institutions within the next five years.

23

4.181. No services are provided at Rainier that cannot feasibly be made available to class plaintiffs

24 in the community, and particularly for those class members with severe disabilities, complex medical

25 needs, and challenging behaviors. To the contrary, critically-needed services such as physical therapy,

26
Class Action Complaint -
27 Civil Rights
28 Page - 58

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

speech-language therapy, assistive technology, vocational training, and behavioral support management

are provided inadequately and sporadically at Rainier, or not at all. In the community, the professional

services that the members of the plaintiff class need are widely available.

4.182. In a family-scale residence, it is easy for staff to become familiar with an individual's needs

in a way that staff at Rainier cannot.

4.183. The defendants' failure to make residential services available to class plaintiffs with serious

medical needs is irrational since in Washington, as in other states all over the country, children with

complex medical needs — children who are technology dependent, ventilator dependent, or have

catheterization tubes — are living at home with their families with support services funded by Medicaid,

10 maternal health demonstration grants and the Washington Medicaid waiver program. Adults with

11 serious medical needs live in their own homes with support services provided by home health care

12 agencies and other support services. The vast majority of Washington's citizens with serious medical

13 needs do not go to institutions to receive their medical, therapeutic, or educational services. They

14 receive those services in their own homes and communities.

15

4.184. The intent of Congress, in amending the Social Security Act in 1971 to allow states to use

16 Title XIX funds to pay for services in Intermediate Care Facilities for the Mentally Retarded (ICF/MR),

17 was to support "[t]he active provision of rehabilitative, educational and training services to enhance

18 the capacity of mentally retarded individuals to care for themselves or to engage in employment." 117

19 Cong. Rec. 44720 (December 4,1971). The unintended consequence of the use of ICR/MR funds by

20 state officials, including the defendants, is that most ICF/MR dollars have flowed to large, custodial

21 institutions like Rainier where little habilitation, education, and training take place.

22

4.185. Under the federal ICF/MR program, federal funds pay for fifty-two percent of the cost of

23 care at Rainier. The ICF/MR program in effect gives states a right to draw against an open-ended federal

24 bank account for their state institutions as long as the state's own surveyors continue to certify those

25 facilities.

26
Class Action Complaint -
27 Civil Rights
28 Page - 59

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

4.186. The State of Washington is highly dependent upon the ICF/MR funding stream, not

because of the professional judgment that persons with developmental disabilities are appropriately

served in an ICR/MR facility, but because the ICF/MR program provides the most secure, stable, and

predictable form of federal financial assistance to states for service delivery to persons with

developmental disabilities. Defendants' discriminatory and inappropriate use of ICF/MR funds to

sustain its large, custodial state institutions inhibits and slows the growth and creation of alternative

community-based services for persons with significant disabilities.

8

4.187. DSHS surveyors have an inherent conflict of interest when they survey a state facility such

as Rainier. The state has a strong fiscal interest in continued Medicaid reimbursement for services at

10 Rainier, and that interest is jeopardized when surveyors find violations of the conditions for continued

11 participation.

12

4.188. The defendants' ICF/MR survey process is inadequate. DSHS surveyors fail to ensure that

13 Medicaid-certified facilities in Washington, including Rainier and other ICF/MRs, meet the minimum

14 standards for certification for the receipt of Medicaid funds pursuant to Title XIX of the Social Security

15 Act. Under the Medicaid regulations, failure to meet all eight of the ICF/MR conditions for participation

16 requires that the facility be decertified. However, DSHS surveyors often ignore the myriad violations

17 of the ICR/MR standards at Rainier and routinely certify the facility, even though deficiencies are so

18 massive that a reasonable surveyor could not find the institution in compliance with all of the ICF/MR

19 conditions for participation.

20 P. Integrated Community-Based Programs and Placements
21 4.189. Professional judgment dictates that persons with significant disabilities be served in life
22 patterns that are integrated with and similar to those followed by other persons. The overwhelming
23 majority of developmental disability professionals, public agencies and service providers now reject the
24 medical or deficit model and see their purpose as that of supporting people with significant disabilities
25
in normal, integrated residential and work settings. Professionals now believe that the task of the service
26

Class Action Complaint -
27 Civil Rights 28 Page - 60

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

system is not to assign the persons to a facility based on a diagnosis, but to support people in homes they choose themselves, where they can live with the people with whom they want to live. This paradigm shift from the "medical model" to the "support model" is reflected in the mission statements, goals and objectives of all the major national organizations concerned with people with developmental disabilities, as well as the policies of the State of Washington and its executive and legislative branches.
4.190. The longstanding federal policy toward individuals with developmental disabilities, articulated and enacted over the course of nearly three decades, is based on the values of independence, productivity, and integration of citizens with disabilities. This policy in turn mirrors the professional consensus that the proper place for individuals with developmental disability is in normal homes, schools and workplaces, and not in segregated "facility-based" programs.
4.191. The defendants themselves have recognized that it is good for individuals with disabilities to live in the most normal setting possible. They know that individuals with significant disabilities benefit enormously from opportunities to practice daily living skills in normal environments, and to exercise choice and judgment in their lives.
4.192. The defendants have acknowledged and recognize that the most important concept shaping the delivery of developmental disability services during the last decade included "normalization" and "community integration" as formal objectives for those state agencies administering services to individuals with disabilities. "Normalization" is the principle that "the 'treatment' of individuals with mental retardation and related conditions must recognize and reflect each individual's dignity as a person, his or her natural membership in their native society and community, and his or her right to live as closely as possible in the manner of their culture." 'Community integration' is a concept "reflecting the value to people with developmental disabilities of sharing in community life" that includes the following key principles:
a. Physical Integration: To be a member of a community one must live in that

27

Class Action Complaint Civil Rights

Page - 61

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

1

valued lifestyles and roles;

2

c. Social Integration: To be a member of a community one must enjoy reciprocal

interpersonal relationships with other community members; and

d. Self-Determination: To be a member of a community one must be able to affirm one's

4

individuality through expressions of personal independence and preference within the

limits and according to the standards of the community.

4.193. The defendants, as well as those professionals who work at Rainier, are in general 6
agreement that the residents of Rainier could successfully be placed in the community if provided with 7
adequate supports and services. In particular, defendant Davis, the Director of DDD, has frequently 8
stated that the residents of Rainier could be served in the community if they were provided with 9
appropriate habilitation services and supports. 10
4.194. Research, demonstrations, and practice have shown conclusively that individuals with II
developmental disabilities are better off in integrated community settings than in large congregate 12
settings based on the "deficit" model. Individuals with developmental disabilities grow, gain skills, and 13
overcome institution-imposed regression when provided with opportunities to learn and practice basic 14
skills in small, well-structured, supervised community settings. 15
4.195. In the last twelve years a body of research has developed showing what happens to the 16
quality of life of individuals with developmental disabilities when they move from large congregate care 17
settings to community living in small, family-scale homes. 18
4.196. In a five-year study commissioned by the Secretary of the United States Department of 19
Health and Human Services comparing the growth and development of individuals moved from 20
Pennhurst, a large congregate institution in Pennsylvania structurally similar to Rainier, to family-scale 21
community living arrangements, researchers monitoring residents for five years found that persons with 22
severe disabilities placed in community living arrangements increased in skills and developmental 23
growth while residents of the institution did not. The federal government study concluded that persons 24
who moved from Pennhurst to community placements were "better off in every way." J.W. Conroy and
25
V.J. Bradley. The Pennhurst Longitudinal Studv: A Report of Five Years of Research and Analysis.

26 Class Action Complaint -
Civil Rights
27 28 Page - 62

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

Temple Univ. Philadelphia, PA (1985). After the initial five-year study was competed, the authors of

the Pennhurst Longitudinal Study continued to follow the 1700 members of the Pennhurst class and

found significant continued gains in growth and well-being.

4.197. Similarly, a systematic longitudinal study on the progress of 1,350 members of the plaintiff

class in CARC v. Thome. No. H-78-653 (TEC) (D. Conn.), concluded that "the people who have thus

far moved from congregate care to community settings are, on the average, much better off in every way

we know how to measure." J.W. Conroy, fit al, 1990 Results of the CARC v. Thorne Longitudinal

Study (1991) (emphasis in original).

4.198. These and other systematic studies of what happens to institutional residents when they

10 move to the community have found:

11

a. When former institutional residents are placed in the community, they make highly

significant gains in skills and development (adaptive behavior);

12

b. Former institutional residents who move to the community make significantly greater

13

gains in adaptive behavior than those individuals with comparable needs who remain at

the institution;

14

c. When people who are labeled severely or profoundly retarded move into family-like

15

community settings, they show even greater gains, proportionally, in adaptive behavior

than persons labeled mildly and moderately retarded. No support exists for the proposition

16

that some people are "too low functioning" to succeed in the community;

17

d. Although the initial gains in adaptive behavior following class members' placement

in the community are generally the most dramatic, the gains do not level off but continue.

18

Former institutional residents continue to make significant gains in the community;

19

e. Former institutional residents make significant gains in reducing challenging or

maladaptive behavior after they are placed in the community;

20

f. An inverse relationship exists between the size of a residential setting and the degree

21

of community integration of its residents;

22

g. Former institutional residents generally receive more hours of service in the

community than they received at the institution; and

23

h. Before community placement, the majority of families of former institutional

24

residents are strongly opposed to community placement of their relatives. However, after

community placement, this pattern is completely reversed: the majority of family members

25

become strongly supportive of community placement.

26

27

Class Action Complaint Civil Rights

28 Page - 63

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

4.199. The experience of properly planned institutional closures in other states demonstrates that

virtually all residents of state institutions can live in small, integrated residential settings in the

community, and that closure can be accomplished without adverse effects to institutional residents.

4.200. The issue of whether individuals with developmental disabilities are better off in family-

scale, integrated settings than in large congregate settings (settings with more than fifteen residents) is

no longer an issue for scholars and professionals in the field. There is a strong consensus among

scholars who have studied the relation between size and quality of care that family-scale residences are

8 better than institutions for individuals with developmental disabilities in every way that is measurable.

9 O. Discriminatory Exclusion from Community-Based Services
10
4.201. The defendants refuse to refer many members of the plaintiff class for community 11
placement because they perceive them as having severe disabilities, complex medical conditions, or 12
challenging behaviors. Professional recommendations for community placement cannot be made or 13
acted upon because of the unavailability of community services for those members of the plaintiff class. 14
4.202. The State of Washington's mental retardation and developmental disabilities program 15
embodies the obsolete "medical model." It is characterized by a system of "levels" of residential 16
facilities from the large and most heavily staffed institutions, such as Rainier, to the smallest and least 17
heavily staffed residential facilities, such as typical homes, duplexes, or apartments where residents live 18
semi-independently. This system is a substantial departure from the current professional consensus in 19
the field. By continuing to operate this system, the defendants intentionally discriminate against those 20
individuals who are perceived as having severe developmental disabilities, complex medical conditions, 21
or challenging behaviors. 22
4.203. The defendants have failed to prevent their community-based residential service providers 23
from discriminating against those plaintiff class members who are perceived as having severe 24
developmental disabilities, complex medical conditions, or challenging behaviors. Defendants have 25
failed to provide funding on a per diem basis for community-based services that is non-discriminatory
26

27

Class Action Complaint Civil Rights

28 Page - 64

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521 /Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

and equitable in comparison to the funding available to the state's institutions, including Rainier. The

service system operated by defendants is characterized by absence of planning and lack of coordination

between the separate agencies that share responsibility for serving individuals with developmental

disabilities.

4.204. The defendants, through DSHS, have applied for and received a waiver from the Health

Care Financing Administration of the United States Department of Health and Human Services as

provided under Section 2176 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981. The Section 2176

8 waiver allows Medicaid funds to be used to support a variety of non-institutional home and community-

based services for former ICF/MR residents or those who are at risk of ICF/MR placement. To obtain

10 a waiver, the defendants must show the Health Care Financing Administration of the United States 11 Department of Health and Human Services that they will use the waiver to close ICF/MR beds or refrain 12 from opening new ones. The wavier provides the same federal match —fifty-twocents for every forty13 eight cents — that the defendants receive for services at Rainier. Effective use of the federal Medicaid 14 Waiver Program would enable Washington to provide integrated services to persons currently residing 15 at Rainier at no greater expense to the state treasury.

16

4.205. The defendants have failed to use the waiver program to provide home and community-

17 based services for Rainier residents with the most significant disabilities. If community programs were

18 funded at the same level as Rainier, community providers could develop services for everyone.

19

4.206. The defendants do not plan for services based on the identified needs of individual

20 residents. Many of the class plaintiffs are placed at Rainier because institutional beds are available, not

21 because that service meets their individual needs.

22

4.207. The defendants have chosen to allocate the majority of their fiscal resources for

23 developmental disabilities services to the state's institutions. This is a political, rather than a

24 professional, decision. Class plaintiffs are denied community services, not because of the professional 25 judgment that they should be institutionalized, but because the distribution of resources is skewed

26
Class Action Complaint -
27 Civil Rights
Page - 65

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

toward the state's institutions.

4.208. In their actions and inactions recited above, the defendants have failed to exercise proper

professional judgment. Defendants' actions and inactions are such a substantial departure from

professional judgment and current standards and practices as to demonstrate that they actually did not

base their decisions on professional judgment.

4.209. In their actions and inactions recited above, the defendants have acquiesced, with deliberate

indifference, in a policy and practice of failing to adequately train their employees and in other policies,

8 practices, customs and usages that are likely to result and have resulted in the violation of the class

plaintiffs' constitutional rights.

10

4.210. The actions and inactions of the defendants that are recited above have resulted and will

11 continue to result in harm, injury, and regression to the class plaintiffs.

12

4.211. The class plaintiffs have no other adequate remedy at law.

13

14

Claims

15

Count I: Americans With Disabilities Act

16

5.1. The ADA contains four substantive titles that address discrimination in the areas of

17 employment, public services, public accommodations, and telecommunications. Plaintiffs have brought

18 this action, in relevant part, pursuant to Title II of the ADA.

19

5.2. The defendants have violated the rights of the members of the plaintiff class secured by

20 Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12161-12165 and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto to, 28

21 C.F.R., Part 35, by:

22

a. Denying the representative plaintiffs and the other members of the plaintiff class the

opportunity to participate in and benefit from the public services and programs that are as

23

effective and meaningful as those delivered to other citizens with less severe disabilities

in less separate and more integrated settings;

24

b. Failing to make reasonable modifications in their policies, practices, and procedures

25

to enable the representative plaintiffs and the other members of the plaintiff class to

participate in integrated public services and programs;

26

Class Action Complaint -
27 Civil Rights
2 8 Page - 66

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

1

c. Imposing eligibility criteria that unnecessarily excludes certain classes of individuals

with disabilities and that prevents the representative plaintiffs and the other members of

2

the plaintiff class from fully and equally enjoying the defendants' public services,

programs, and activities;

d. Failing to administer their public services, programs, and activities for the

4

representative plaintiffs and the other members of the plaintiff class in the most integrated

settings appropriate to their individual needs;

5

e. Failing to furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services to enable class members an

6

equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits -of t-he d.efe.nda. nts.' pu. bli.c services,

programs, and activities;

7

f. Failing to remove the architectural and communication barriers that prevent the

8

representative plaintiffs and the other members of the plaintiff class from participating in

aonnHd VbteonneAf'fiittiitnirgr ffrronmm ttVhiAe /dIefaf-feennsdiaannttes'' vpuuiWblIiisc* es*e»rnvriri»c«e»so, *p%roi*g/\mr*aQmmsc, oann/d1 aQcotfiuvniftiiAecs*; aanndA

9

g. Aiding and perpetuating discrimination against the residents of Rainier in their public

10

programs, services, and activities.

11

5.3. Defendants are agents of the State of Washington, and therefore obligated to comply with

12 the requirements of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

13

5.4. Defendants' policies, procedures, and practices that separate those residents with complex

14 medical conditions and challenging behaviors from the other residents of Rainier and from other persons 15 with developmental disabilities violate their right to be free from discrimination based on the nature or

16 severity of their disability in violation of Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12132 and 12182 (b) (1) (B),

17 and 28 C.F.R. § 35.130 (d).

18

5.5. Defendants' practice of not providing equal access to active treatment and meaningful

19 habilitation to those residents of Rainier who have severe disabilities, complex medical conditions, or

20 challenging behaviors violate their right to be free from discrimination based on the nature or severity

21 of their disabilities in violation of Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12132.

22

5.6. The defendants' practice of providing inadequate habilitation services to the representative

23 plaintiffs and other members of the plaintiff class in the institutional environment at Rainier, which are

24 less effective than treatment in community-based programs and settings, and which are unnecessary for

25 their habilitation, violates their right to be free from discrimination based on the nature or severity of

26
Class Action Complaint -
27 Civil Rights
28 Page - 67

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

their disabilities in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12132 and 12182 (b) (1) (A) (iii), and 28 C.F.R. § 35.130 (b) (1) (iv).

Count II: Rehabilitation Act
5.7. The defendants have violated the rights of the members of the plaintiff class secured by
Sections 100 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. 29 U.S.C. §§ 720 and 794, and the
regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, 45 C.F.R., parts 84 and 1361, by:
a. Denying the representative plaintiffs and the other members of the plaintiff class the benefits of federally assisted community-based habilitation and vocational services and programs;
b. Failing to provide the representative plaintiffs and the other members of the plaintiff class federally assisted services that are as effective and meaningful as those delivered to other citizens of this state, and that are delivered in less separate and more integrated

13

benefits of federally assisted vocational training, habilitation, active treatment, and other

programs on the basis of the severity of their intellectual or other disabilities;

14

d. Segregating the residents of Rainier on the basis of their developmental, physical,

15

behavioral, or medical disabilities;

16

e. Providing federally assisted programs and services to individuals with severe

developmental disabilities, complex medical conditions, and challenging behaviors in the

17

segregated institutional environment at Rainier, which is less effective than treatment in

the community and is unnecessary for their habilitation; and

18 II

f. Aiding and perpetuating discrimination against the residents of Rainier in federally-

19

funded programs.

20

21

Count III: Due Process Clause

22

5.8. The defendants have violated the rights of the members of the plaintiff class secured by the

23 Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, and by 42 U.S.C. § 1983, by:

24

a. Subjecting the representative plaintiffs and the other members of the plaintiff class

to harm and injury, including abuse, injuries from neglect, regression, physical

25

deterioration, deprivation of social relationships, and the harms arising from segregation

and confinement;

26

Class Action Complaint 27 Cjvj| Rlghts

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370

28 R a g e . 68

Telephone: (206) 324-1521 /Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

1

b. Failing to provide the representative plaintiffs and the other members of the plaintiff

class with adequate food, shelter, clothing, and health care;

2

c. Imposing unnecessary and excessive restraints, physical and chemical, on the

3

representative plaintiffs and the other members of the plaintiff class;

4

d. Failing to provide the representative plaintiffs and the other members of the plaintiff

class with minimally adequate and meaningful training and habilitation;

5

e. Failing to give consideration to the habilitative placement and other needs and rights

6

of each of the representative plaintiffs and the other members of the plaintiff class, and to

treat him or her in accordance with his or her own situation;

7

f. Conclusively presuming that the representative plaintiffs and the other members of

8

the plaintiff class can not benefit from particular services or live in non-institutional

settings;

9

g. Denying the representative plaintiffs and the other members of the plaintiff class

10

adequate and meaningful opportunities to be heard on the appropriateness of their

vocational and habilitative plans, programs, and residential environment;

h. Failing to provide an advocate to assist each of the representative plaintiffs and the

12

other members of the plaintiff class in the exercise their rights as enumerated above; and

13

i. Failing, in the actions and inactions set forth above, to exercise professional judgment

14

15

Count IV: Social Security Act

16

5.9. The defendants have violated the rights of the members of the plaintiff class secured by

17 Title XIX of the SSA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396,1396a, 1396d(d), and the regulations promulgated pursuant

18 thereto, 42 C.F.R. § 435.1009; part 483, subpart D; and part 456, subparts E, F, and I; and by 42 U.S.C.

19 §1983, by:

20

a. Failing to exercise adequate operating direction over Rainier, as required by 42 C.F.R.

§ 483.410(a)(l);

21

b. Failing to adequately document the health care services, active treatment, and other

22

information concerning the representative plaintiffs and the other members of the plaintiff

class, as required by 42 C.F.R. §§ 483.410(c)(l) and 483.440(c)(5)(iv);

23

c. Failing to allow and encourage the representative plaintiffs and the other members of

»24

the plaintiff class to exercise their rights as citizens of Washington and the United States, as required by 42 C.F.R. § 483.420(a)(3);

d. Failing to enable the representative plaintiffs and the other members of the plaintiff

26

27

Class Action Complaint Civil Rights

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506

Seattle, Washington 98370

° " Page - 69

Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

1

class to communicate, associate, and meet privately with persons of their choice, and to

participate in social, religious, and community group activities, as required by 42 C.F.R.

2

§483.420(a)(9)and(ll);

3

e. Failing to enable the representative plaintiffs and the other members of the plaintiff

class to retain and use appropriate personal possessions and clothing, as required by 42

4

C.F.R. § 483.420(a)(12);

5

f. Failing to promote participation of the representative plaintiffs and the other members

of the plaintiff class, as well as their parents and/or legal guardians, in the process of

6

providing active treatment to the plaintiffs, as required by 42 C.F.R. § 483.420(c)(l);

7

g. Failing to implement procedures that prohibit physical, verbal, sexual, and

psychological abuse or punishment, as required by 42 C.F.R. § 483.420(d)(l);

8

h. Failing to provide the representative plaintiffs and the other members of the class with

9

an active treatment program that is integrated, coordinated, and monitored by a qualified

mental retardation professional, as required by 42 C.F.R. § 483.430(a);

10

i. Failing to provide sufficient professional staff and adequate professional program

11

services to implement the active treatment program defined and set forth in the individual

program plans of each ofthe representative plaintiffs and the other members of the plaintiff

12

class, as required by 42 C.F.R. § 483.430(b);

13

j . Failing to provide appropriately qualified, trained, and competent staff in numbers

that are sufficient to assist and supervise the representative plaintiffs and the other

14

members of the plaintiff class in carrying out their individual program plans, as required

by 42 C.F.R. § 483.430(c), (d), and (e);

k. Failing to provide the representative plaintiffs and the other members of the class with

16

a continuous, aggressively and consistently implemented program of active treatment

consisting of the needed interventions and services in sufficient number and frequency to

17

enable the plaintiffs to attain as much self determination, independence, and optimal

functional status as possible, as required by 42 C.F.R. § 483.440(a);

18

1. Failing to provide the representative plaintiffs and the other members of the class with

19

minimally adequate post-discharge plans, as required by 42 C.F.R. § 483.440(b);

20

m. Failing to provide the representative plaintiffs and the other members of the plaintiff

class which they represent with accurate, comprehensive functional assessments

21

identifying their developmental strengths, their developmental and behavioral needs, and

their need for services, without regard to the need for availability of services, as required

22

by 42 C.F.R. § 483.440(c)(3);

23

n. Failing to provide the representative plaintiffs and the other members of the plaintiff

class with adequate individual program plans setting forth the specific objectives necessary

24

to meet their individual needs, as required by 42 C.F.R. § 483.440(c)(6)(iv);

25

o. Failing to ensure that the representative plaintiffs and the other members of the

I

plaintiff class' individual program plans identify the mechanical supports needed to

_ _ Class Action Complaint -

27

Civil Rights

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506

Seattle, Washington 98370

Page • 70

Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

1

achieve proper body position, balance or alignment, and specify the reason for each

support, the situations in which they are to be applied, and a schedule for their use, as

2

required by 42 C.F.R. § 483.440(c)(6)(iv);

3

p. Failing to ensure that the representative plaintiffs and the other members of the class'

individual program plans include opportunities for individual choice and self-management,

4

as required by 42 C.F.R. § 483.440(c)(6)(vi);

5 6
I
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ||
20;; 21 || 22::
23 I 24 251|

q. Failing to ensure that each representative plaintiff and the other members of the plaintiff class' comprehensive functional assessment are reviewed at least annually by their
interdisciplinary team for relevancy and updated as needed, and that each of their individual habilitation programs are revised as appropriate, as required by 42 C.F.R. §

483.440(f)(2);

^

r. Failing to ensure that the behavioral support plans for managing challenging

behaviors of the representative plaintiffs and the other members of the plaintiff class are

employed with sufficient safeguards and supervision to protect then* safety, health, and

welfare, as well as their civil and human rights, as required by 42 C.F.R.§ 483.450(b)(2);

s. Failing to incorporate the use of positive behavioral supports to manage the challenging and inappropriate behaviors into the behavioral support plans and individual habilitation plans of those representative plaintiffs and other members of the plaintiff class who require such supports, as required by 42 C.F.R. § 483.450(b)(4);
t. Failing to assure that antipsychotic medications and other drugs used for control of challenging and inappropriate behaviors are approved by the individuals' interdisciplinary team and used only as an integral part of an individual habilitation plan and behavioral support plan that is directed specifically toward the reduction of and eventual elimination of the behaviors for which such drugs are employed, rather than for the convenience of staff or punishment, as required by 42 C.F.R. § 483.450(e)(2);

u. Failing to provide medical services and care necessary to maintain an optimum level of health for each of the representative plaintiffs and the other members of the plaintiff class in order to prevent further disability, as required by 42 C.F.R. § 483.460(a);

v. Failing to assure that health services and care are adequately integrated into the representative plaintiffs and the other members of the plaintiff class' individual habilitation programs, as required by 42 C.F.R. § 483.460(b);

w. Failing to assure that the representative plaintiffs and the other members of the plaintiff class members an adequate living environment, as required by 42 C.F.R. § 483.470;

x. Failing to assure adequate food, nutrition, and meal services, as required by 42 C.F.R. § 483.470;
y. Failing to maintain the compliance of the Rainier Residential Habilitation Center with conditions of participation for intermediate care facilities for persons with mental retardation;

26 n
_ _ |, Class Action Complaint *•' " Civil Rights
Page • 71

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

1

z. Failing to determine whether series available at Rainier and the other Title XIX

facilities in which the representative plaintiffs and the other members of the plaintiff class

2

may reside are adequate to meet their health, rehabilitative, and social needs, and to

promote their maximum physical, mental, and psychosocial functioning, as required by 42

3

C.F.R. § 456.609(a);

4

aa. Failing to determine whether it is necessary and desirable for the representative

plaintiffs and the other members of the plaintiff class to remain at Rainier and the other

5

Title XIX facilities in which they may reside, as required by 42 C.F.R. § 456.609(b);

6

bb. Failing to review me appropriateness of the representative plaintiffs and the other

members of the plaintiff class' continued placement at Rainier and the other Title XIX

7

facilities in which they may reside, and failing to determine the feasibility of meeting their

needs through alternative non-institutional services and settings, as required by 42 C.F.R.

8

§ 456.609(c);

9

cc. Failing to ensure adequate utilization review of discharge planning; and

10

dd. Failing to properly evaluate each plaintiffs need for admission prior to their

placement at Rainier.

11

12

Count V; First Amendment

13

5.10. The defendants have violated the rights of the members of the plaintiff class to the

14

freedoms of expression and association secured by the First Amendment to the United States

15

Constitution by:

16

a. Preventing the representative plaintiffs and the other members of the plaintiff class

17

from associating and assembling with others of their choice;

18

b. Preventing the representative plaintiffs and the other members of the plaintiff class

from meeting and speaking privately with friends, advocates, and others of their choice;

19

c. Preventing the representative plaintiffs and the other members of the plaintiff class

20

f"rom communicating with others of t-he-ir-ch- o-ice;

21

d. Diminishing and failing to protect the capacity of the representative plaintiffs and the

other members of the plaintiff class to produce ideas by thinking and learning, and to

22

express those ideas through communication with other people; and

23

e. Preventing and interfering with the representative plaintiffs and the other members

of the plaintiff class in the free exercise of religion.

24

5.11. Each resident at Rainier has a constitutional right to be treated with dignity and to be

25

afforded the maximum personal freedom that she or he is capable of exercising. Whenever defendants

26

Class Action Complaint Civil Rights
Page - 72

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

restrict class plaintiffs' rights to dignity and personal freedom, they may do so only for a habilitative purpose, and they are constitutionally required to utilize the least drastic alternative sufficient to achieve that purpose.
5.12. Each of the class plaintiffs could be more adequately served and have their rights less drastically restricted then the conditions now existing at Rainier.

Prayer for Relief

Wherefore your plaintiffs respectfully pray to this honorable Court for the following relief:

9 A. An order declaring that defendants1 actions and inactions, as described herein, violate class
10 plaintiffs' rights under Title XIX of the Social Security Act and its implementing federal regulations;

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations; the Rehabilitation Act 12
of 1973 and its implementing federal regulations; the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

to the United States Constitution; and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 14

15

B. After hearing, enter an order preliminarily and permanently enjoining the defendants:

16

1. To arrange for the independent evaluation, by qualified professionals not employed

by the State of Washington, of the individual habilitation and treatment needs of each plaintiff

17 ||

class member to determine whether adequate treatment consistent with constitutional and

statutory standards is being provided to each plaintiff class member, and to determine whether

18

any class members have been injured as a result of constitutionally inadequate treatment at

Rainier in the past;

19

2. To develop community living arrangements for all members of the plaintiff class,

minimally adequate habilitation, as defined in an individual person-centered planning process

21 I

that is consistent with contemporary standards of practice, until such time as the class member

no longer is in need of services;

22

3. To provide services to the members of the plaintiff class in a manner which promotes

23

their independence, enhances their dignity, and is as consistent as possible with societal norms;

24

4. To provide each representative plaintiff and all of the members of the plaintiff class

with effective habilitation and vocational services in the most integrated setting appropriate to

25

their needs;

26

27

Class Action Complaint Civil Rights

28 Page - 73

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

1

5. To make available the necessary alternative residential facilities, home services,

vocational services, and day services in the community, including:

2

a. An effective, independent, conflict-free system of case management and service

3

coordination for class members;

4

b. Individual service plans based on need rather than availability of services,

reflecting the value of supporting an individuals with relationships, productive work,

5

participation in community life, and personal decision-making;

6

c. Identification of the support and services needed by class members by a process

of person-centered planning with procedures for members of the plaintiff class to dispute

7

portions of their individual service plan;

8

d. A system of personal advocacy and self-advocacy to assist the class plaintiffs in

asserting their rights;

9

e. A system of rights and rights protection for persons living in the community and

10

served by programs funded, licensed, or operated by the defendants through DSHS;

11

f. An effective, systematic resource development capability, including but not

limited to a program to ensure the availability of appropriate community residential

12

services; appropriate medical, dental, psychiatric, therapeutic, and behavioral support

services; appropriate community-integrated employment services and other day activities

13

in community-integrated settings;

14

g. An effective quality assurance system in the community capable of detecting and

remedying problems in the class plaintiffs' individual programs in systemic and

15

coordinated fashion;

16

h. An effective, mutually supportive management information systems in which

systems of reporting, oversight and communication of information are organized and

17

operational; and

18

i. An effective performance contracting system.

19

6. To provide class plaintiffs and their families with an opportunity to be heard by a

neutral decision-maker on the substance of their program and placement;

20

7. To cease admitting individuals to Rainier or from transferring present residents from

21

Rainier unless such transfer is to the most integrated community setting appropriate to their

needs, and appropriate developmental disability services are provided to them;

22

8. To establish a system to prevent abuse and neglect of Rainier residents, to thoroughly

23

and promptly investigate allegations of abuse and neglect and to establish appropriate

consequences for abuse and neglect of residents by Rainier staff.

24

9. To hire sufficient numbers of professional and direct care staff at Rainier, including

25

sufficient numbers of qualified physicians, physical therapists, occupational therapists, speech

and language pathologists, psychologists, and aides;

26

Class Action Complaint 2 7 civil Rights

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506

28 Rage _74

Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

1

10. To provide adequate medical care to Rainier residents;

2

11. To develop and deliver a professionally designed, consistently and aggressively

implemented program of training, treatment, and other services to each Rainier resident to enable

3

her or him to function with the greatest self-determination and independence possible;

4

12. To provide professionally designed therapeutic support services, including adaptive

equipment, positioning, mealtime programs, behavioral programs, and other assistance necessary

5

to protect each class member from harm and regression;

6

13. To develop and provide adequate training programs for professional and direct care

staff at Rainier, and assure that all staff are able to demonstrate the skills and competencies to

7

provide active treatment to the class members they serve;

8

14. To provide a safe environment for each class member at Rainier;

9

15. To allow class members to participate in community activities, and to allow

reasonable access to Rainier and reasonable opportunities to communicate with class members

10

at Rainier, to People First of Washington, other advocates, and members of religious and

community organizations;

11

16. To make available a friend-advocate to each plaintiff and member of the plaintiff

12

class to assist each in securing the substantive and procedural protections aforesaid; and

13

17. To submit to plaintiffs and this honorable Court for approval a plan for

implementation of the aforesaid; and 14

C. An order awarding such other relief as may just, proper, and equitable, including plaintiffs' 15

costs and a reasonable fee award for their attorneys. 16

17 Dated this .<Vday of October, 1996.
18

19 Respectfully submitted,
20

21

People First of Washington, Inc., James Campbell, by

22

and through his next friend, Dennis Campbell,

Chris Olson, by and through his next friend, Diane

23

Grace, Houston Williams, by and through his next

friend and legal guardian, Steven Cassio, Peter

24

Bohnke, by and through his next friend, John

Domenic Revello, Dawn Layery, by and through

25

her nextfriendand legal guardian, Emerson Fosner,

26

27

Class Action Complaint Civil Rights

28 Page - 75

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23
241

25

26]

27

Class Action Complaint Civil Rights

28

and John Mann, by and through his next Mead, Resa Hayes, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; and the Arc of Washington State, Inc.. The Autism Society of Washington, and the Washington Protection and Advocacy System, Inc., Plaintiffs
Deborah A. Dorfinan WSBA #23823
MichaeU. Smith WSBA #14111 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (205) 324-1521 Facsimile: (206) 324-1783
Steven J. Sch'
RCdstanzo MSBA #553813 Center for Public Representation 22 Green Street Northampton, Massachusetts 01060
Telephone: (413) 586-6024 Facsimile: (413) 586-5711 Attorneys for plaintiffs People First, James Campbell, Chris Olson, Houston Williams, Peter Bohnke, Dawn Laveiy, John Mann, Autism Society of Washington, and the Washiogton Protection and Advocacy System
Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson stmtt, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Tetephan*: (206) 324-1521/Facsimite: (206) 324-1783

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Class Action Complaint •
Civil Rights
28
Page - 77

L Jones 219Tiast Galer i Seattle, Washington 98102
Telephone: (206) 324-4300 Facsimile: (206) 324-1140 Attorney for plaintiff Arc of Washington State
Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

1

Verification

2 State of Washington
ss.
3 County of King

4

I, Al Lewis, am the President of the Board of Directors of The Arc of Washington State, Inc.,

5 one of the organizational plaintiffs in the above and foregoing complaint. Plaintiff The Arc of

6 Washington State, a non-profit corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Washington,

7 is a state wide advocacy organization whose members include individuals with disabilities, their

8 families, and others interested in issues affecting persons with developmental disabilities. The Board

9 of Directors of The Arc of Washington State, Inc., have joined with the other individual and

10 organizational plaintiffs in the preparation and filing of this class-action complaint. I have read the

11 foregoing complaint and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as

12 to those matters which are therein alleged on information and belief, and, as to those matters, I believe

13 them to be true.

14

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration

15 was executed on this J$. , day of October, 1996, in .6/y.*#?> y. , Washington.

16

17

18

19

Subscribed and Sworn to before me by Al Lewis

20

21
Notary Public in and fo: the State of Washington
22

23

Washington

24 My Commission Expires:

25

26

27

Class Action Complaint Civil Rights

28 Page-78

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facslmile: (206) 324-1783

1

Verification

2 State of Washington

3 County of Asotin

4

I, Chari Lincoln, am the Chairperson ofthe Board ofDirectors ofPeople First ofWashington,

5 Inc., one ofthe organizational plaintiffs in the above and foregoing complaint. Plaintiff People First of

6 Washington, a non-profit corporation dory organized under the laws ofthe State of Washington, is a state

7 wide self-advocacy organization governed entirely by people with developmental disabilities. The Board

8 ofDirectors ofPeople First ofWashington, Inc., havejoined with the other individual and organizational

9 plaintiffs in the preparation andfilingofthis class-action complaint. I have read the foregoing complaint

10 and know the contents thereof The same is true ofmy own knowledge, except as to those matters which

11 are therein alleged on information and belief, and, as to those matters, I believe them to be true.

12

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration

13 was executed on this. A6.t£day of October, 1996, in .ClsPftSton , Washington.

14

15 Chari Lincoln
16

17

and Sworn to before me by Chari Lincoln this 1.6th day of October, 1996.

18

19 otary Public in and for the State of Washington:
20

21
22 My Commission Expires:
23 24 January 6, 1998

Clarkston

j Washington

25

26

27

Class Action Complaint Civil Rights

28 Page - 79

Washington Protection & Advocacy Syste 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 5l Seattle, Washington 983
Telephone: (206) 324-1621/Facsimile: (206) 324-17

1

Verification

2 State of Washington : : ss.
3 County of Spokane :

4

I, Donna Lowary, am the Executive Director of People First of Washington, Inc., one of the

5 organizational plaintiffs in the above and foregoing complaint. Plaintiff People First of Washington, a

6 non-profit corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Washington, is a state wide self-

7 advocacy organization governed entirely by people with developmental disabilities. The Board of

8 Directors of People First ofWashington, Inc., have joined with the other individual and organizational

9 plaintiffs in the preparation andfilingofthis class-action complaint. I have read the foregoing complaint

10 and know the contents thereof The same is true ofmy own knowledge, except as to those matters which

11 are therein alleged on information and belief, and, as to those matters, I believe them to be true.

12

I declare under penalty ofperjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration

13 was executed on this. J$t*\ day of October, 1996, in .CAarfcstpn 14

} Washington.

15

16

Donna Lowary

17

Subscribed and Sworn to before me by Donna Lowary this .-^.^day of October, 1996.

18

19

20

Notary Public in and for the State of Washington:

21
22 23 My Commission Expires:

Clarkston f Washington

24 January 6, 1998

25

26

27 Class Action Complaint -
Civil Rights
28
Page - 80

Washington Protection & Advocacy System
1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsbnile: (206) 324-1783

State of Washington :

: ss.

County of Clark

:

Verification

I, Dennis Campbell, am a member of People First of Washington, one of the organizational

plaintiffs in the above and foregoing complaint. I am acquainted with James Campbell, one of the

individual plaintiffs in the above and foregoing complaint. I have read the foregoing complaint and know

the contents thereof The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are

therein alleged on information and belief, and, as to those matters, I believe them to be true. I bring this

action on James Campbell's behalf in my capacity as his next friend.

10

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration

11 was executed on this JP.. , day of October, 1996, i n j ^ v w y .f

, Washington.

12

13

14

Dennis Campbell, Next Friend of James Campbell

15 Subscribed and Sworn to before me by Dennis Campbell this /WSday of October, 1996.
16

17

18

^Notary Public in and fq|r the Sta£e) of Washington:

19 20 21 || My Commission Expires:

, Washington. .

22

23

24

25

26
Class Action Complaint -
27 Civil Rights
28 Page-81

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsbnile: (206) 324-1783

1

Verification

2

State of Washington

3

: ss.

County of King

4

I, Diane Grace, am a member of People First of Washington, one of the organizational plaintiffs

in the above and foregoing complaint. I am acquainted with Chris Olson, one of the individual plaintiffs 6
in the above and foregoing complaint. I have read the foregoing complaint and know the contents 7
thereof The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein alleged 8
on information and belief, and, as to those matters, I believe them to be true. I bring this action on Chris 9
Olson's behalf in my capacity as his next friend. 10
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration

was executed on this. 1.0. , day of October, 1996, in K^&AfZ^&fl^, 12

Washington.

13

14 Diane Grace, N)jxt Friend of Chris Olson
15

16

Subscribed and Sworn to before me by Diane Grace this I wryla^£>f October, 1996.

17

18 ^Notary Prfblic in and far the State/M Washington:
19

20

21 My Commission Expires:
22

23

24

25

26 Class Action Complaint -
27 Cjvj| eights
2** Page-82

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

Verification

State of Washington :

: ss.

County of Pierce

:

4 I, Steven Cassio, am the duly-appointed legal guardian for Houston Williams, one of the plaintiffs

in the above and foregoing complaint. I have read the foregoing complaint and know the contents

6

thereof The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein alleged

7

on information and belief, and, as to those matters, I believe them to be true. I bring this action on my

8

ward's behalf in my capacity as his legal guardian and next friend.

9

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration

10

was executed on this. U . , day of October, 1996, in ^£fh*?P!Q

, Washington.

nil

12

13

Steven Cassio, Legal Guardian ofHouston Williams

14

15

U r'\
Subscribed and Sworn to before me by Steven Cassio this Ai. day of October, 1996.

16

17

18

ic in and for th1e State of Washington:

19 20 21 My Commission Expires:

, Washington

22
J.O.

23

24

25

26 Class Action Complaint -
Civil Rights
27 28 Page - 83

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimlle: (206) 324-1783

1

Verification

2

State of Washington :

3

: ss.

County of King

:

4

I, John Domenic Revello am acquainted with Peter Bohnke, one of the individual plaintiffs in

the above and foregoing complaint. I have read the foregoing complaint and know the contents thereof. 6
The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein alleged on 7
information and belief, and, as to those matters, I believe them to be true. I bring this action on Peter 8
Bohnke's behalf in my capacity as his next friend. 9
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration 10
was executed on this . /.*? , day of October, 1996, i n . . S^eZ-/^ . . . , Washington. 11

12

13 14 Bohnke

John Domenic Revello, Next Friend of Peter

15 Subscribed and Sworn to before me by John Domenic Revello this / TT/^&ay of October, 1996.
16

17

18

itary Pubnc in and fbrjhe State ofjWashington:

19

JiPl#

, Washington . . J.&.ipr^-...

20

21 My Commission Expires:

22 ID ~O%~
23

24

25

26
Class Action Complaint -
27 Civil Rights
28 P a g e - ^ 4

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

Verification

State of Washington :

: ss.

County of Pierce

:

4 L Emerson Fosner, am the duly-appointed legal guardian for Dawn Lavery, one of the plaintiffs

in the above and foregoing complaint. I have read the foregoing complaint and know the contents 6
thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein alleged

on information and belief, and, as to those matters, I believe them to be true. I bring this action on my

8

ward's behalf in my capacity as her legal guardian and next Mend.

9

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration

10

IV

'^'

11 was executed on this. .'.V , day of October, 1996, in . . 1'.4.<-<r>*«r<^/. . . , Washington.

12

13
Emerson Fosner, Legal Guardian of Dawn Lavery 14

15

Subscribed and Sworn to before me by Emerson Fosner tMs/£^\day of October. 1996.

16

17 18
19
20 21 My Commission Expires:

N- o.tary. Publ,ic in an. d for the* State of .W, ashington:
.1JV'.I. . f=rv. .v\ i'^y/lr - ^
. , Washington

22

23

24

25

26
Class Action Complaint -
27 Civil Rights
28 Page • 85

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsknile: (208) 324-1783

1 II

Verification

2

3 || State of Washington ss.
4 || County of Spokane

I, Resa Hayes, am a member of People First of Washington, one of the organizational plaintiffs

in the above and foregoing complaint. I am acquainted with John Mann, one of the individual plaintiffs

7 || in the above and foregoing complaint. I have read the foregoing complaint and know the contents

8 thereof The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein alleged 9 on information and belief, and, as to those matters, I believe them to be true. I bring this action on John

10 Mann's behalf in my capacity as his next friend.

11

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration

12 was executed on this .12). , day of October, 1996, in / S U A ^ ^ . ,

, Washington.

13

14

15

Resa Hayes, Next Friend of John Mann

16 Subscribed and Sworn to before me by Resa Hayes this. I'P'.Klay of October, 1996.
17

18
19
20
21 22 My Commission Expires:

ttary Puolic in and fcjr the Sta^e pf Washington:
Ho),
, Washington. .78/.^.

23

24

25

26
Class Action Complaint -
27 Civil Rights
28 Page - 86

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsbnile: (206) 324-1783

1

Verification

2 State of Washington

3 County of King

ss.

4

I, Renata Lac, am the Executive Director of The Autism Society of Washington, one of the

5 organizational plaintiffs in the above and foregoing complaint. Plaintiff The Autism Society of

6 Washington, a non-profit corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Washington, is a

7 state wide advocacy, support, and education organization for persons with autism, their families, and

8 friends. The Board of Directors of The Autism Society of Washington have joined with the other

9 individual and organizational plaintiffs in the preparation and filing of this class-action complaint. I

10 have read the foregoing complaint and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own 11 knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein alleged on information and belief, and, as to 12 those matters, I believe them to be true.

13

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration

14 was executed on this /./., day of October, 1996, in. —ftvJ/^rr-r:., Washington.

.*!

16 Renata Lac
17

18

Subscribed and Sworn to before me by Renata Lac this iT/'TNday of October, 1996.

19

vwl

20

tary Public inarkHbr/he State (jfjwashington

21

22

Washington.T&f&

23 My Commission Expires:
24

25

26
Class Action Complaint -
27 Civil Rights
28 Page - 87

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

Verification

State of Washington :

: ss.

County of King

:

I, Mark G. Stroh, am the Executive Director of the Washington Protection and Advocacy System,

Inc., one of the organizational plaintiffs in the above and foregoing complaint. Plaintiff Washington

Protection and Advocacy System, Inc., a non-profit corporation duly organized under the laws of the

State of Washington, is the protection and advocacy system designated by the Governor of the State of

8 Washington to protect and advocate for the legal rights of persons with disabilities. The Board of

Directors of Washington Protection and Advocacy System, Inc., have joined with the other individual

10 and organizational plaintiffs in the preparation and filing of this class-action complaint. I have read the
n foregoing complaint and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as

12 to those matters which are therein alleged on information and belief, and, as to those matters, I believe

13 them to be true.

14

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration

15 was executed on this . .'.*. , day of October, 1996, in

J**.\Ll.\., Washington.

16

17
Mark G. Stroh 18"

19 ||

Subscribed and Sworn to before me by Mark G. Stroh this < .^'Hiay of October, 1996.

20

2i

-—~T~rv^i?y.f. y. J. * /.". vr.1.1 *J*I'.".../]

Jotary Public in and |orjjie State ofjwashington:

22

23

\ Washington

24 My Commission Expires:
25"

26 II Class Action Complaint -
2 7 II Civil Rights
2 8 || R a g e . gg

Washington Protection & Advocacy System 1401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98370
Telephone: (206) 324-1521/Facsimile: (206) 324-1783

 
 People First of Wash. v. Rainer RHC

Promoting Dignity, Equality and Self-Determination

MR-WA-002-001

People First vs. Rainier RHC

Case Summary

'

The Washington Protection and Advocacy System (WPAS) filed a major class action lawsuit concerning dangerous conditions at Rainier School, the state's largest residential habilitation center (RHC)for people with mental retardation and developmental disabilities. According to the lawsuit, filed in federal court October 21, Rainier residents are subjected to abuse, neglect, injury, and inappropriate physical and chemical restraint and the defendants have violated the rights of residents under thefollowing laws: U.S. Constitution, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Social Security Act. One of the lawsuit's demands is the transfer of many Rainier residents to appropriate community placements. Similar litigation in other states has resulted in the closure of institutions for people with developmental disabilities. This lawsuit could have a dramatic impact on the lives of people with developmental disabilities in Washington.
Plaintiffs Named as plaintiffs in People First vs. Rainier RHC are six individuals with developmental disabilities who currently reside at Rainier and four organizations: People First of Washington, The Arc of Washington State, the Autism Society of Washington, and the Washington Protection and Advocacy System (WPAS).

The six individual plaintiffs are: James Campbell, who has lived at Rainier since 1983; Chris Olson, who has lived at Rainier since 1970; Houston Williams, who has lived at Rainier since 1956; Peter Bohnke, who has lived at Rainier since 1947; Dawn Lavery, who has lived at Rainier since 1973; &nd John Mann, who has lived at Rainier since 1947.

People First of Washington, a nonprofit corporation, is a statewide solf-advocacy organization governed entirely by people with developmental disabilities. More than 1000 Washington citizens are members of People First through its 33 chapters and support groups.

The Arc of Washington State, a nonprofit corporation, is the state's oldest and largest membership

organization for individuals with developmental disabilities, their families, friends, and persons

providing services to them. The Arc's membership includes individuals who are at risk of

institutionalization at Rainier because of their developmental disabilities.

»

The Autism Society of Washington, a nonprofit corporation, is a local chapter of the Autism Society of America, which provides advocacy, support, and education on issues affecting persons with autism and their families and friends. The Autism Society's members include individuals with autism and other similar disabilities, as well as their families and friends.

Facsimile (206)324-1783

Washington Protection & Advocacy System A member of the National Association of Protection & Advocacy Systems

Telephone (Voice) (206)324-1521
(800) 562-2702 toll-free Interpreters Available

1401 East Jefferson, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98122

Telephone (TDD)

Electronic Mail

(206)720-0209

wpas@halcyon.com

(800) 905-0209 toll-free

The Washington Protection and Advocacy System (WPAS), a nonprofit corporation, is designated by the Governor to protect and advocate for the legal and civil rights of people in Washington who have physical or mental disabilities. WPAS has the authority and responsibility to pursue legal, administrative, and other appropriate remedies to protect and advocate for the rights of those state citizens who are or who may be eligible for treatment, services or habilitation due to their developmental, mental or physical disabilities.
Defendants The following are named as defendants in People First vs. Rainier RHC: The Rainier Residential Habilitation Center, a state-owned and state-operated institution in Buckley, Washington; Michael Lowry, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Washington; The Washington Department of Social and Health Services; Lyle Quasim, in his official capacity as the Secretary of the Washington Department of Social and Health Services; The Washington Division of Developmental Disabilities; Norm Davis, in his official capacity as the Director of the Washington Division of Developmental Disabilities; Leanna Lamb, in her official capacity as the Superintendent of the Rainier Residential Habilitation Center; The Washington Office of Financial Management; and Gary Robinson, in his official capacity as the Acting Director of the Washington Office of Financial Management.
Description of class The class represented in the lawsuit consists of all persons who: (1) presently reside at Rainier, (2) may be admitted or are at risk of being admitted to Rainier; or (3) have been discharged from Rainier to group homes, nursing facilities, intermediate care facilities for individuals with mental retardation and developmental disabilities, and other community living arrangements funded, operated, or licensed by the defendants after October 1, 1991, and at risk of reinstitutionalization in the future due to inadequate supports and services. Approximately 459 individuals currently reside at Rainier. Approximately 30 individuals have been discharged from Rainier in the past 5 years. The number of class members who may be admitted or are at risk of institutionalization at Rainier is not known at the present time.
Primary Allegations People First vs. Rainier RHC includes, but is not limited to, the following allegations:
Harmful Conditions: The conditions at Rainier are dangerous, and have caused and continue to pose an immediate and great threat of harm to the individuals residing there. In addition, Rainier is a segregated, inhumane and disrespectful environment.
Inadequate Basic Care: At Rainier, many of the plaintiffs' basic care needs are frequently ignored. For example, residents are often left alone for hours, staff ratios in many units are inadequate to meet residents' basic care and attendant support needs, and, due to the inadequate staffing, some of the staff on duty commonly ignore their clients and leave residents unattended. In some cases, this practice has lead to serious injury and death.
People First vs. Rainier RHC - Page 2

Inadequate Medical Care: Many members of the plaintiff class do not receive adequate and timely medical care or dental care. Medical staffing at Rainier is grossly inadequate. Residents' health problems often go unrecognized and untreated. The one part-time psychiatrist at Rainier is completely inadequate to supervise and monitor the care of the hundreds of Rainier residents who receive psychoactive medications or require intensive behavioral supports.
Excessive Injury and Abuse: Residents' safety at Rainier is constantly at risk. The rate of injury is alarmingly high. Many of the injuries are of unknown cause and weie unobserved at the time they occurred. The defendants do not make reasonable professional attempts to prevent injuries. Verbal abuse of residents is widespread at Rainier and neglect of residents is common.
Inadequate Habilitation and Training: Habilitation is the teaching and training process required by persons with significant disabilities so that they can reach their fullest potential in physical, social and mental growth. The amount of habilitation services offered to class members at Rainier is grossly inadequate to meet their individual needs or to qualify as active treatment. Habilitation at Rainier does not lead to greater independence, productivity and integration. The quality of life of persons at Rainier is unacceptable because it offers no opportunity for progress, participation in valued life activities, daily lifestyle choices, privacy, safety, or dignity.
Inadequate Behavior Management: Appropriate behavior management programs and supports are important components of habilitation and active treatment. However, at Rainier, programs to deal with plaintiffs' behavioral problems are seriously deficient. As a result, physical and chemical restraints are used as a substitute for appropriate care and programs, with the consequence that residents' behavioral problems are exacerbated and escalate.
Inadequate Discharge Planning: Post-discharge planning and follow-along services at Rainier are inadequate. Several Rainier residents have been discharged from the institution without adequate effort to assure that they will receive the proper support in an alternative community-based setting. As a result, these Rainier residents who have been discharged are at risk of harm and of readmission to Rainier. During the past five years, Rainier has discharged thirty residents, often without proper planning and provision of the services needed to meet their individual needs.
Needless Regression: Rainier residents have suffered regression with respect to their individual skills and abilities. Members of the plaintiff class who were in good health now have serious, even lifethreatening health problems, including damaged lungs and difficulties with breathing and digestion. Due to the numbing effect of idleness and the institution's barren environment, many class plaintiffs have lost cognitive skills, the ability to relate to others and to respond to their environment. Other class plaintiffs have lost the ability to speak and communicate.
Discriminatory Exclusion from Community-Based Services: The defendants refuse to refer many members of the plaintiff class for community placement. Although community services are not more expensive, the defendants have chosen to allocate the majority of their fiscal resources for developmental disability services to the institutions. Many of the class plaintiffs are placed at Rainier because beds are available, not because that service meets their individual needs.
People First vs. Rainier RHC —Page 3

Demands The primary goal of People First vs. Rainier RHC is to change harmful conditions at Rainier and allow residents to be transferred to community placements. Specific demands include the following:

•

To establish a system to prevent abuse and neglect of Rainier residents, to thoroughly and

promptly investigate allegations of abuse and neglect and to establish appropriate

consequences for abuse and neglect of residents by Rainier staff.

To arrange for independent evaluation, by qualified professionals not employed by the state, of the individual habilitation and treatment needs of each plaintiff class member to determine whether adequate treatment is being provided and whether any injuries have resulted from inadequate treatment at Rainier,

To hire sufficient numbers of professional and direct care staff at Rainier, including sufficient numbers of qualified physicians, physical therapists, occupational therapists, speech and language pathologists, psychologists, and aides;

•

To develop and provide adequate training programs for professional and direct care staff at

Rainier, and assure that all staff are able to demonstrate the skills and competencies to provide

active treatment to the class members they serve;

•

To cease admitting individuals to Rainier or from transferring present residents from Rainier

unless such transfer is to the most integrated community setting appropriate to their needs,

and appropriate developmental disability services are provided to them;

The State Legislature's Conclusions on Community Placement In 1992, the state Legislative Budget Committee (LBC) conducted an extensive investigation on the issue of moving people with developmental disabilities out of institutions and into the community. The LBC concluded that individuals in the state's developmental disability institutions and community residential programs and services, generally speaking, were not distinct in terms of problem behaviors, daily living skills, and needed services and supports. Their findings, distributed in early 1993, included the following:

•

Many of the current residents at state institutions could be supported successfully in home and

community-based placements;

•

Placement in home and community-based settings is most conducive to personal growth and

independence, and is generally more cost-effective than institutional care; and

•

Services provided in both community and institutional settings should be designed to promote

the acquisition of independent living skills and self-sufficiency.

People First vs. Rainier RHC — Page 4

 
 Promoting Dignity, Equality
and Self-Determination

People First of Wash. v. Rainer RHC

January 14, 1997

Illl I I Illllll I II II I I II
MR-WA-002-003

Mary F. Hayden, Ph.D. Research Director University of Minnesota Center on Residential Services and Community Living Institute on Community Integration (UAP) , College of Education and Human Development 214 Pattee Hall 150 Pillsbury Drive SE Minneapolis, MN 55455-0223

Dear Dr. Hayden,
Mark Stroh, our Executive Director, is having me send you the enclosed documents per your letter dated January 8 requesting publications related to community living and possible barriers to integration. The documents include: a major class action lawsuit we filed this past October against Rainier School, Washington State's largest residential habilitation center (RHC) for people with mental retardation and developmental disabilities; a case summary of the lawsuit; two fact sheets relating to the lawsuit; and a bibliography of WPAS library materials related to community living.
I hope these materials are useful to you somehow. Good luck with your research and please call us if you have any questions: (206) 324-1521.

Cordially,

James Jorc Administrative Assistant
cc: Mark Stroh
Enclosures

Facsimile (206)324-1783

Washington Protection & Advocacy System A member of the National Association of Protection & Advocacy Systems

Telephone (Voice) (206)324-1521
(800) 562-2702 toll-free Interpreters Available

1401 East Jefferson, Suite 506 Seattle, Washington 98122

Telephone (TDD)

Electronic Mail

(206)720-0209

wpas@halcyon.com

(800) 905-0209 toll-free

 
 •· , , V , Ä J Ì ¢ J . c¾;¾»j¾^

Washington Protection & Advocacy System • 1401 East Jefferson Suite 506 • Seattle WA 98122

A member of the National Association of Protection & Advocacy Systems

Date·

October 21 1996

People First of Wash. v. Ra¡ner RHC

Pr.,„ed b,: Ma* S ^ Exec«ive „ „ , | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | i J ü||í|i||||i||||||!| ||||||IIII ||ff|Í|||H| If||

Integrated Community-Based Supports and Services: The Right Choice
The longstanding federal policy toward individuals with developmental disabilities, articulated and enacted over the course of nearly three decades, is based on the values of independence, productivity, and integration of citizens with disabilities. The overwhelming majority of developmental disability professionals, public agencies and service providers now see their purpose as that of supporting people with significant disabilities in normal, integrated residential and work settings. Professional and scholarly research clearly shows that individuals with developmental disabilities are better off in family-scale, integrated settings than in large institutions.
Professionals now believe that the task of the service system is not to assign the persons to a facility based on a diagnosis, but to support people in homes they choose themselves, where they can Uve with the people with whom they want to live. This paradigm shift from the "medical model" to the "individual support model" is reflected in the mission statements, goals and objectives of all the major national organizations concerned with people with developmental disabilities, as well as the policies of the state of Washington and its executive and legislative branches.
Individuals with significant disabilities benefit enormously from opportunities to practice daily living skills in normal environments, and to exercise choice and judgment in their lives. The most important concepts shaping the delivery of developmental disability services during the last decade included "normalization" and "community integration" as formal objectives for those state agencies administering services to individuals with disabilities.
Normalization is the principle that "the 'treatment' of individuals with mental retardation and related conditions must recognize and reflect each individual's dignity as a person, his or her natural membership in their native society and community, and his or her right to live as closely as possible in the manner of their culture."
Community integration is a concept "reflecting the value to people with developmental disabiUties of sharing in community life" that includes the following key principles:

Telephone (Voice) (206)324-1521
(800)562-2702 toll-free interpreters Available

Facsimile (206)324-1783

Electronic Mail wpas@halcyon.com

Promoting Dignity, Equality and Self-Determination

Telephone (TDD) (206)720-0209 (800)905-0209 toll-free

•

When former institutional residents are placed in the community, they make highly

significant gains in skills and development (adaptive behavior);

•

Former institutional residents who move to the community make significantly greater

gains in adaptive behavior than those individuals with comparable needs who remain at

the institution;

•

When people who are labeled severely or profoundly retarded move into family-like

community settings, they show even greater gains, proportionally, in adaptive behavior

than persons labeled mildly and moderately retarded. No support exists for the

proposition that some people are "too low functioning" to succeed in the community;

•

Although the initial gains in adaptive behavior following class members' placement in the

community are generally the most dramatic, the gains do not level off but continue.

Former institutional residents continue to make significant gains in the community;

•

Former institutional residents make significant gains in reducing challenging or

maladaptive behavior after they are placed in the community;

• `

An inverse relationship exists between the size of a residential setting and the degree of

community integration of its residents;

•

Former institutional residents generally receive more hours of service in the community

than they received at the institution; and

•

Before community placement, the majority of families of former institutional residents are

strongly opposed to community placement of their relatives. However, after community

placement, this pattern is completely reversed: the majority of family members become

strongly supportive of community placement:

The experience of properly planned institutional closures in other states demonstrates that virtually all residents of state institutions can live in small, integrated residential settings in the community, and that closure can be accomplished without adverse effects to institutional residents.

The issue of whether individuals with developmental disabilities are better off in family-scale, integrated settings than in large congregate settings (settings with more than 15 residents) is no longer an issue for scholars and professionals in the field. There is a strong consensus among scholars who have studied the relation between size and quality of care that family-scale residences are better than institutions for individuals with developmental disabilities in every way that is measurable.

The Right Choice

Page 3

 
 WPASBIBUOGRAPHY

Subject: Date:

Washington Protection & Advocacy System • 1401 East Jefferson Suite 506 • Seattle WA 98122 A member of the National Association of Protection & Advocacy Systems
Community Living
December 1996

This bibliography lists resources available at the Washington Protection and Advocacy System

(WPAS), unless stated otherwise. (WPAS Library call numbers are in parentheses at the end of

the citations.)

People First of Wash. v. Rainer RHC
Illllllll Illl 11IIIJIIJI

MR-WA-0002-0005
1. Abuse Monitoring Project of Equip for Equality, Inc. Not Our Problem: Executive and Legislative Response to Violence to State-Operated Institutions in Illinois. Chicago: Equip for Equality, Inc.; 1994. (RIG 078)
This is the first report of an independent, external evaluation of the quality of investigations conducted by the Office of the Inspector General of complaints of abuse and neglect at four Chicago area institutions.

2.

Not Our Problem: Executive and Legislative Response to Violence in State-Operated

Institutions in Illinois: Final Report. Chicago: Equip for Equality, Inc.; 1996. (RIG 078 Final)

This second evaluation of Office of Inspector General investigative reports focused on a

comparison of the 1993 baseline findings with results obtained for investigative reports

received during the second half of 1994 when all investigators had been trained and many

of the policy changes had been initiated.

3. American Association of University Affiliated Programs (AAUAP); Association for Retarded Citizens of the United States (ARC/US); National Association of Developmental Disability Councils (NADDC); National Association of Private Residential Resources (NAPRR); National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems (NAPAS); United Cerebral Palsy Associations, Inc. (UCPA). Continuous Active Treatment. Washington, D.C.: The Associations; 1991. (RES 001)
This looseleaf binder contains material from a working conference held in Washington, D.C., on March 21-22, 1991. Attendees at the conference discussed the provision of "active treatment" to people with developmental disabilities.

4. Blake, Ellen M.; Prouty, Robert W.; Lakin, K. Charlie; Mangan, Troy. Reinventing Quality: a Sourcebook of Innovative Programs for Quality Assurance and Service Improvement in

Telephone (Voice) (206)324-1521
(800)562-2702 toll-free Interpreters Available

Facsimile (206)324-1783

Electronic Mail wpas@halcyon.com

Promoting Dignity. Equality and Self-Determination

Telephone (TDD) (206)720-0209 (800)905-0209 toll-free

Community Settings. Minneapolis, MN; University of Minnesota, Research and Training Center on Community Living, Institute on Community Integration; 1994 and 1995. (MIS 017)
These reports describe activities to assure and enhance the quality of services to persons with developmental disabilities.
5. Blatt, Burton; Kaplan, Fred. Christmas in Purgatory - A Photographic Essay on Mental Retardation. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University; 1974. (RES 037)
This book of photographs depicts the conditions of public institutions in the period just a few years after deinstitutionalization was begun and major federal reforms were instituted.
6. Bogdan, Robert; Taylor, Steven J. The Social Meaning nf Mental Retardation: Two Life Stories. New York: Teachers College Press; 1994. (DIS 024)
This book addresses the question "What does it mean to be 'mentally retarded'?" by interviewing two experts, "Ed Murphy" and "Pattie Burt," for answers. Ed and Patti, former residents of institutions, tell what it means in their own words. This book was originally published under the title Inside Out.
7. Braddock, David; Hemp, Richard; Bachelder, Lynn; and Fujiura, Glenn. The State of the States in Developmental Disabilities. 4th ed. Washington, D.C.: American Association on Mental Retardation; 1995. (MIS 005 1995)
This volume reports statistics on public and private institution utilization and expenditures for each of the states and the U.S. In addition to detailed statistics for 1988-92, trends are provided on a number of important indicators of change beginning with 1977.
8. Carling, Paul J.; Besio, Susan W. Community Integration: The Challenge of the 1990's. Burlington, VT: Center for Community Change Through Housing and Support, University of Vermont; 1992. (HOU 002)
This is a collection of material from the Pre-Conference Training Institute, Western Regional Conference on Housing and Supports, held in Portland, OR, May 31-June 3, 1992.
9. Conroy, James W. The Hissom Outcomes Study: A Report on Six Years of Movement into Supported Living—The People Who Moved from Hissom Memori?l Center to Community: Are They Better Off? Brief Report Number 1 of a Series on the Well-Being of People with Developmental Disabilities in Oklahoma. Ardmore, PA: Center for Outcome Analysis; 1995. (INS 013)
This report, the first in a series, addresses the main question, "Are people better off?" for the 520 people who lived at the Hissom Memorial Center (Oklahoma) on or after May 2, 1985.
10. Conroy, James W.; and Bradley, Valerie J. The Pennhurst Longitudinal Study: A Report of Five Years of Research and Analysis. Philadelphia: Temple University Developmental Disabilities Center. Boston: Human Services Research Institute; 1985. (RES 038)

Community Living Bibliography

Page 2

This report describes findings of the most comprehensive study of persons released from a large public institution in the U.S. It reports on a major court-ordered deinstitutionalization effort in Pennsylvania and highlights outcomes for people as well as issues related to financing post-institutional community life.
11. Crocker, Allen. Medical Care Needs of Persons with Developmental Disabilities. Omaha, NE: University of Nebraska Medical Center, Department of Psychiatry; 1986. (HEA201)
Dr. Crocker is Professor, Department of Pediatrics, Boston Children's Hospital, and Adjunct Professor, Harvard Medical School. His presentation concentrates on the medical care needs of persons with developmental disabilities. This video cassette was produced as part of a series ("Effective and Efficient Community Services for the Most Challenging to Serve") funded by the Administration on Developmental Disabilities.
12. Davis, Meredith, ed. From Dependence to Independence. Boulder, CO: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE); 1981. (MEN 007)
This document provides the necessary framework for the development of a clear statement of the staff capabilities necessary to serve the people with chronic mental illness.
13. Duke University Medical Center, Department of Psychiatry, Division of Social and Community Psychiatry. Hospital Without Walls (Programs for Assertive Community Treatment - Pact). Durham, NC: Duke University Medical Center, Department of Psychiatry, Division of Social and Community Psychiatry; 1993. (RES 202)
An in-depth introduction to the Programs for Assertive Community Treatment (PACT), which is a community-based service approach that helps people with severe mental illnesses remain in their own homes, control symptoms, and become contributing members of their communities. (48 minutes)
14. Fahs, Jeffrey J. Psychopharmacologic Interventions with Mentally Retarded Individuals. Omaha, NE: University of Nebraska Medical Center, Department of Psychiatry; 1987. (PHA 200)
Dr. Fahs is a psycho-pharmacologist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. He specializes in treatment of people who are dually diagnosed (MR/MI). This video cassette was produced as part of a series ("Effective and Efficient Community Services for the Most Challenging to Serve") funded by the Administration on Developmental Disabilities.
15. Ferguson, Philip M.; Ferguson, Dianne L.; Taylor, Steven J., eds. Interpreting Disability: A Qualitative Reader. New York: Teachers College Press; 1992. (DIS 025)
This book offers a collection of qualitative research affecting people with disabilities and their families.
16. Gettings, Robert M. Serving Delaware Children and Adults with Severe. Chronic Medical and Developmental Disabilities. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Mental Retardation Program Directors; 1992. (DIS 050)

Community Living Bibliography

Page 3

This is the report of a comprehensive study of the organization and delivery of services in Delaware to children and adults who are medically fragile.

17. Goldman, Sybil K. Crisis Services (Vol. 2 of a series on Community-Based Services for Children and Adolescents Who Are Severely Emotionally Disturbed^. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Child Development Center, CASSP Technical Assistance Center; 1988. (SUP 005)
The focus of this report is on the mental health system and its linkages with other providers and systems to provide crisis intervention and stabilization services to children and adolescents who are severely emotionally disturbed and to their families. It also focuses on community-based services.

18. Harris County (TX) Psychiatric Center. Involuntary Interventions: the Call for a National Legal and Medical Response. Houston: University of Texas-Horn ton Medical School Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences; 1994. (RIG 071 Proc.)
These are the proceedings of a symposium, May 5-7,1994, designed to bring together knowledgeable professionals, consumers, and families to discuss the issues involved with involuntary interventions. One of the objectives of the Symposium was to identify methods for improving the quality and availability of community-based services and supports.

19. Howell, Mary. Clients Who Are Mentally Retarded and Also Old: Developmental. Emotional, and Medical Needs. Omaha, NE: University of Nebraska Medical Center, Department of Psychiatry; 1987. (SUP 200)
Dr. Howell is Head of the Kennedy Aging Project, Eunice Kennedy Shriver Center on Mental Retardation. Her presentation reviews what types of services can be provided and how to set up a demonstration project for this under served population. This video cassette was produced as part of a series ("Effective and Efficient Community Services for the Most Challenging to Serve") funded by the Administration on Developmental Disabilities.

20. Institute on Disability/A University Affiliated Program, University of New Hampshire. Extending the American Dream: Home Ownership for People with Disabilities. Durham, NH: National Home of Your Own Alliance; 1994. (HOU 004)
This report is a summary of financial data for 16 participants in New Hampshire's "Home of Your Own Project." The project demonstrated that service funds and disability-related entitlements, if used imaginatively, can allow people to own homes.

21. Irwin, Marilyn; Wilcox, Barbara. Least Restrictive Environment: Commitment to Implementation. Bloomington, IN: Institute for the Study of Developmental Disabilities; 1987. (EDU 124)
This document contains the transcribed and edited plenary- presentations as well as executive summaries of each concurrent session of the 1987 National Leadership Conference. Goals of the Conference were to: 1) determine that collaboration among

Community Living Bibliography

Page 4

policy makers, local public school personnel, parents, and university professionals can
result in system change; 2) demonstrate the effectiveness of school programs that
incorporate best practices; and 3) explore strategies for change that are relevant to the needs of parents, teachers, administrators, and advocates of individuals who have severe
disabilities.

22. Janicki, Matthew P. Building the Future: Planning and Community Development in Aging and Developmental Disabilities. Albany, NY: Community Integration Project, New York Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities; 1991. (AGI 228)
This manual is an overview of what New York has experienced and of lessons learned in "building the future" for seniors with lifelong disabilities. The manual contains specific sections on aids to planning, networking, training, and program development and a brief overview of key federal enabling legislation.

23.

. Integration Experiences Casebook: Program Ideas in Aging and Developmental

Disabilities. Albany, NY: Community Integration Project, New York Office of Mental

Retardation and Developmental Disabilities; 1992. (AGI 229)

These 38 case studies illustrate projects which were successful at integrating individuals

with mental retardation and other developmental disabilities into aging services or

promoting their inclusion in community life.

24. Jaskulski, Teckla M.; Lakin, K. Charlie; Zierman, Susan A.; President's Committee on Mental Retardation. The Journey to Inclusion: a Resource for State Policy Makers. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families; 1995. (ADV 032)
The purpose of this document is to provide participants at the 1995 National Collaborative Academy on Mental Retardation with background on the theoretical framework that governs the provision of services and supports to people with mental retardation, the best practices that the field endorses, and the changes in the form, scope and substance that mental retardation systems around the country have experienced over the past several decades.

25. Johnson, Ann Braden. Out of Bedlam: The Truth About Deinstitutionalization. New York: Basic Books; 1990. (RES 041)
This book focuses on the deinstitutionalization of persons with psychiatric disabilities and a "great social experiment" that, the author feels, yielded much less than promised.

26. Karan, Orv. Mental Health Needs of Mentally Retarded/Mentally HI Persons. Omaha, NE: University of Nebraska Medical Center, Department of Psychiatry, 1986. (MEN 201)
Dr. Karan is Training Director, Research and Training Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison. His presentation asks, "What is the community doing about the mental health needs of persons who are mentally retarded/mentally ill; and what are some of the issues that need to be addressed to integrate these individuals into the community?" This video cassette was produced as part of a series ("Effective and Efficient Community Services for

Community Living Bibliography

Page 5

the Most Challenging to Serve") funded by the Administration on Developmental Disabilities.
27. Mangan, Troy; Blake, Ellen M.; Prouty, Robert W.; Lakin, K. Charlie. Residential Services for Persons with Mental Retardation and Related Conditions: Status and Trends Through 1993. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Research and Training Center on Residential Services and Community Living, Institute on Community Integration (UAP); 1994. (RES 017)
This report presents statistics on persons with mental retardation and related conditions in state-operated, non-state, and Medicaid-funded residential programs in the United States, including residential services operated specifically for persons with mental retardation and related conditions, nursing homes, and state psychiatric facilities. The statistics in this report are for the year ending June 30, 1993.
28. Martin, Leslie; Ludi, Dale Carter. Self-Determination: The Road to Personal Freedom. Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico Protection and Advocacy System; 1994. (ADM 042)
This manual presents a set of concepts which help explain what constitutes self-determination and provides teaching strategies that give students the best opportunities to practice what it takes to be self-determined.
29. McGee, John. Gentle Teaching. Omaha, NE: University of Nebraska Medical Center, Department of Psychiatry; 1987. (BEH 200)
Dr. McGee discusses his philosophical approach to serving persons with developmental disabilities. The essence of this approach is the bonding between the care giver and the individual. He is strongly opposed to using aversives. This video cassette was produced as part of a series ("Effective and Efficient Community Services for the Most Challenging to Serve") funded by the Administration on Developmental Disabilities. (Also see the book #BEH 136.)
30. McGee, John J.; Menolascino, Frank J.; Hobbs, Daniel C ; Menousek, Paul E. Gentle Teaching: A Non-Aversive Approach to Helping Persons with Mental Retardation. New York: Human Sciences Press; 1987. (BEH 136)
This book is presented as an option to the punishment practices that are often used by those who serve persons with mental retardation and behavioral problems. It challenges care givers to question these practices and to become teachers of bonding and reward rather than administrators of punishment. (Also see the video cassette #BEH 200.)
31. Minnesota Governor's Planning Council on Developmental Disabilities. A New Way of Thinking. St. Paul, MN: Governor's Planning Council on Developmental Disabilities; 1987. (DIS 112)
This report reviews the "new way of thinking" about how, where, and with whom people with developmental disabilities can live, learn, and work. (Also see the video cassette #DIS 200.)

Community Living Bibliography

Page 6

32.

. A New Way of Thinking. St. Paul, MN: Governor's Planning Council on

Developmental Disabilities; 1987. (DIS 200)

This is a video cassette of the report which reviews the "new way of thinking" about how,

where, and with whom people with developmental disabilities can live, learn, and work.

(23 minutes) (Also see the report #DIS 112.)

33. Minnesota Mental Health Law Project. Room Enough for Everyone: People With Mental Illness and Community-Based Group Homes. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Mental Health Law Project; 1992. (RES 013)
This manual is designed to help community advocates increase public awareness that group homes offer substantial benefits and do not threaten safety or property values, and to advise the public and its officials of the advantages and of the legal rights of persons with mental illnesses living in the community.

34. Moise, Lotte E. As Up We Grew with Barbara. Minneapolis, MN: Dillon Press; 1980. (DIS 003)
This book is the personal story of Lotte, Al, David, Karen, and Barbara Moise and of twenty-five years of progress in community acceptance and services for children with severe and multiple disabilities.

35. Naiditch, Zena; Martin, Marilyn; Mayer, Susan. Abuse of Dually Diagnosed Persons in Institutions: Report of the Court Monitor - Protection and Advocacy. Inc.—Injuries. Alleged Abuse. Restraint and Seclusion of Dually Diagnosed Persons in DMH/DD-Operated Institutions. Chicago: Protection and Advocacy, Inc.; 1988. (ABU 010)
This is a court-ordered (Nathan v. Levitt) report on injuries, alleged abuse, restraint and seclusion of a sample of individuals who had a dual diagnosis (both mental retardation and mental illness) and who lived in institutions operated by the Illinois State Department of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities (DMH/DD). The report covers a six-month period, April-October 1987.

36. National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems (NAPAS). Community Services Litigation. Washington, D.C.: National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems (NAPAS); 1994. (RIG 157)
This loose-leaf binder contains materials from the workshop "Participants of Community Service Litigation (II): Designing and Implementing the Remedy" presented at the 1994 NAPAS Conference. Included is information on all phases of preparation for and conduct of systems litigation seeking to move people from institutions to community homes.

37. National Resource Center on Homelessness and Mental Illness, Policy Research Associates, Inc. Creating Community: Integrating Elderly and Severely Mentally 111 Persons in Public Housing. Delmar, NY: National Resource Center on Homelessness and Mental Illness, Policy Research Associates, Inc.; 1993. (HOU 007)
This report is jointly sponsored by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Center for Mental Health Services of the U.S. Department

Community Living Bibliography

Page 7

of Health and Human Services (HHS) as part of their ongo.ng effort to encourage coordination of housing and services for low-income and homeless families and individuals, including those with severe mental illnesses. The information is designed to help management and staff of public housing agencies and community mental health agencies seeking ways to effectively integrate younger individuals with mental illnesses into public housing for elderly families. Includes a case study of the Seattle Housing Authority.

38. New York State Commission on Quality of Care for the Mentally Disabled. Crossing the Line from Empowerment to Neglect: the Case of Project L.I.F.E. Albany, NY: New York State Commission on Quality of Care for the Mentally Disabled; 1994. (RES 019)
This report presents the results of a review of operations of the Project L.I.F.E. supportive apartment program in New York City. A number of serious problems were identified which affect the health and safety of the residents.

39.

. Falling Through the Safety Net: "Community Living" in Adult Homes for Patients

Discharged from Psychiatric Hospitals. Albany, NY: New York State Commission on Quality of

Care for the Mentally Disabled; 1993. (INS 003)

This report presents case studies of two people who were long-term psychiatric center

inpatients. Their discharge, from psychiatric centers where they had spent substantial

parts of their lives to adult homes, ended in tragedies.

40.

. Life and Death at New Queen Esther Home for Adults. Albany, NY: New York

State Commission on Quality of Care for the Mentally Disabled; 1993. (RES 016)

This report provides a snapshot of conditions in one adult home in New York state. The

investigation into a homicide at the home revealed problems affecting the safety and

well-being of the residents.

41. New York State Commission on Quality of Care for the Mentally Disabled; Mental Hygiene Review Board. In the Matter of Jacob Gordon: Facing the Challenge of Supporting Individuals with Serious Mental Illness in the Community. Albany, NY: New York State Commission on Quality of Care for the Mentally Disabled; 1995. (RES 029)
This report presents the story of a young man's life and death at age 35 from Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome, a rare and sometimes fatal reaction to psychotropic medication.

42. O'Reilly, Carol D. Family Connections/A Family Support Project/Families Making Communities: Book 1) An Introduction; Book 2) Getting Started; Book 3) Sharing Our Stories. Sharing Our Lives; Book 4) Families Empowering Themselves; Supplement) Family Voices. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Family Connections Project, Interdisciplinary Human Development Institute (UAP); 1995. (PAR 013 Books 1-4 and Supplement)
This series of documents are the final products of the Family Connections Project. They look at a philosophy of family support (Book 1), how to move from beliefs to action (Book 2), the way in which personal stories strengthen the community (Book 3), and how families go about the business of empowering themselves at home and in the communities

Community Living Bibliography

Page 8

of their choice (Book 4). The supplement, Family Voices, records family stories told as part of an oral history project.

43. Potter, Jane, M.D.. Services for the Elderly Mentally Retarded. Omaha, NE: University of Nebraska Medical Center, Department of Psychiatry; 1987. (SUP 201)
Dr. Potter is Head of the University of Nebraska Medical Center's Gerontology Program. In this presentation, she discusses community-based services and normalization as they relate to the elderly who are mentally retarded and provides information on the historical development of these programs. This video cassette was produced as part of a series ("Effective and Efficient Community Services for the Most Challenging to Serve") funded by the Administration on Developmental Disabilities.

44. President's Committee on Mental Retardation. A Presidential Forum: Citizens with Mental Retardation and Community Integration. Washington, D.C.: President's Committee on Mental Retardation; 1989. (DIS 233)
This document is the proceedings of the Presidential Forum held in Washington, D.C., in February 1988. The purpose of the Forum was to examine the national effort to promote maximum community integration and to highlight the experiences of educators, service providers, community planners, Federal/State officials, parents, advocates, etc. that have achieved success in planning, designing, evaluating, and/or implementing diverse community integration projects serving persons with mental retardation.

45.

. Collaborating for Inclusion: 1995 Report to the President. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families; 1996.

(ADV 036)

To further the prospects of inclusion, in September 1995 the President's Committee

sponsored the first in a series of National Collaborative Academies on Mental Retardation.

This report summarizes the principles emerging from the Academy's deliberations,

provides guidelines developed by State Teams to enhance collaborative promotion of

inclusion, and presents positions of the President's Committee on Mental Retardation

regarding the relevant public policy issues under debate in the current era of reform.

46. Prouty, Robert W.; Lakin, K. Charlie (eds.). Residential Services for Persons with Developmental Disabilities: Status And Trends Through 1994. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Research and Training Center on Community Living, Institute on Community Integration; 1995. (RES 028)
This report is based on statistics gathered and analyzed as part of the National Residential Information Systems Project on Residential Services (RISP).

47.

. Residential Services for Persons with Developmental Disabilities: Status and Trends

Through 1995 (Report 48Ì. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Research and Training

Center on Community Living, Institute on Community Integration: 1996. (RES 039)

This report summarizes the status of residential services in each of the states and the U.S.

as of June 30,1995. It provides breakdowns of public and private institution populations

Community Living Bibliography

Page 9

as well as the number of people living in community settings of different sizes and types. It also reports completed and projected institutional closures.
48. Prouty, Robert W.; Lakin, K. Charlie. A Summary of States' Efforts to Positively Affect the Quality of Medicaid Home and Community-Based Services for Persons with Mental Retardation and Related Conditions (Report #34Ì. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Center for Residential and Community Services; 1991. (RES 040)
This study summarizes the kinds of activities engaged in by states to positively affect the quality of home and community-based services for persons with mental retardation and related conditions, and briefly describes specific innovative activities within nine states.
49. Racino, Julie Ann; Walker, Pamela; O'Connor, Susan; and Taylor, Steven J. (eds). Housing. Support, and Community: Choices and Strategies for Adults with Disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes; 1993. (SUP 032)
This book presents case studies which demonstrate unique ways of thinking about supporting people to live in their own homes and participate in community life.
50. Robinson, Cordelia. Developmental History - Early Referral and Follow-up Project. Omaha, NE: University of Nebraska Medical Center, Department of Psychiatry; 1987. (PAR 201)
Dr. Robinson is Head, Infant and Early Childhood Program (UAP), Meyer Children's Rehabilitation Institute, University of Nebraska Medical Center. Her presentation examines the procedures for facilitating the referral of children with developmental disabilities who are hospitalized to their public school systems. This video cassette was produced as part of a series ("Effective and Efficient Community Services for the Most Challenging to Serve") funded by the Administration on Developmental Disabilities.
51. Rothman, David J.; and Rothman, Sheila M. The Willowbrook Wars: A Decade of Struggle for Social Justice. New York: Harper and Row; 1984. (Out of Print)
This study describes the implementation of the 1975 Willowbrook consent agreement on the closure of the Willowbrook Developmental Center in the state of New York.
52. Rowitz, Louis. Health Delivery Services and Residential Needs for the Elderly. Omaha, NE: University of Nebraska Medical Center, Department of Psychiatry; 1987. (HEA 202)
Dr. Rowitz is Professor, Department of Public Health and Associate Dean, University of Illinois at Chicago. He presents data and discusses issues concerning the health delivery services and residential needs of the elderly who are mentally retarded. This video cassette was produced as part of a series ("Effective and Efficient Community Services for the Most Challenging to Serve") funded by the Administration on Developmental Disabilities.
53. Schaftt, Gretchen E.; Randolph, Frances L. Innovative Community-Based Services for Older Persons with Mental Illnesses. Rockville, MD: Center for Mental Health Services, Division of Demonstration Programs, Community Support Section; 1994. (RES 030)

Community Living Bibliography

Page 10

This report describes the experiences of 16 state mental health authority grantees and what was learned from them in order to stimulate better service development for older persons with mental disorders.

54. Searl, Julia, (ed.). Serving Children with Special Needs in Your Child Care Facility. Syracuse, NY: Early Childhood Inclusion Network of Onandaga County; 1996. (EDU040)
This manual is designed to assist child care providers with information on how to include children with disabilities in their facilities.

55. Smith, Gary; Ashbaugh, John. Managed Care and People with Developmental Disabilities: a Guidebook. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Developmental Disabilities Services, Inc.; 1995. (SUP 017)
This guidebook is divided into two parts. Part I provides an overview of managed care. Part II includes a more in-depth examination of the potential application of managed care strategies to long-term supports for people with developmental disabilities.

56. Smith, Gary A.; Gettings, Robert M. The HCB Waiver and CSLA Programs: An Update on Medicaid's Role in Supporting People with Developmental Disabilities in the Community. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Developmental Disabilities Services, Inc.; 1994. (FIN 014)
This report summarizes the results of the NASSDDS' fifth nationwide survey of Home and Community-Based (HCB) waiver services for people with developmental disabilities. This report also includes a detailed layman's guide to the federal statutory and regulatory policies governing the HCB waiver program as well as other supplementary material.

57.

. Medicaid-Funded Home and Community-Based Waiver Services for People with

Developmental Disabilities: Long-Term Supports Project. Alexandria, VA: National Association

of State Directors of Developmental Disabilities Services; 1993. (FIN 006)

This report summarizes the results of NASDDDS' fourth nationwide survey on home and

community-based waiver services to people with developmental disabilities. The report

contains state-by-state statistics on home and community-based waiver utilization and

expenditures.

58.

. The Medicaid Home and Community-Based Waiver Program: Recent and Emerging

Trends in Serving People with Developmental Disabilities. Alexandria, VA: National Association

of State Directors of Developmental Disabilities Services;

1996.

This report summarizes the results of NASDDDS' seventh annual nationwide survey on

Home and Community-Based (HCB) waiver services for people with developmental

disabilities. Among other topics, this report includes state-by-state statistics on HCB

utilization and expenditures.

59.

. Medicaid in the Community. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Mental

Retardation Program Directors, Inc.; 1992. (FIN 004)

Community Living Bibliography

Page 11

This report examines the status of the Home and Community-Based (HCB) waiver program as well as the steps that are being taken to implement the Community Supported Living Arrangement (CLSA) program at the federal and state level.
60. Smith, Gary A.; Katz, Ruth E.; Gettings, Robert M. Medicaid Home and Community-Based Services for Persons with Developmental Disabilities: The Home and Community-Based Waiver Experience Federal Funding Inquiry. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Mental Retardation Program Directors, Inc.; 1989. (FIN 002)
This report reviews the first eight years of the Home and Community-Based (HCB) waiver program (1981-1988) and examines its status. The report also discusses federal and state policy and administrative issues that affect the HCB waiver program.
61. Smull, Michael; Harrison, Susan Burke. Supporting People with Severe Reputations in the Community. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Developmental Disabilities Services; 1992. (SUP 001)
Nearly 50% of the people remaining in institutions are reported to have behavioral disorders. This handbook describes, through many practical examples, methods of planning community living with people who have histories of challenging those around them.
62. Taylor, Steven J.; Bogdan, Robert; and Racino, Julie Ann (eds). Life in the Community: Case Studies of Organizations Supporting People with Disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes; 1991. (SUP 031)
This book presents case studies of community organizations and groups that are positive examples of community integration for people with developmental disabilities.
63. Taylor, Steven J.; Bogdan, Robert; and Lutfiyya, Zana Marie (eds). The Variety of Community Experience: Qualitative Studies of Family and Community Life. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes; 1995. (SUP 033)
Filled with practical case studies, this book highlights examples of family and community life for individuals with developmental disabilities;
64. Treichler, Bruce; Hoogan, Gaye. The Rainier Follow-Along Project: Final Report. Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Community Development; 1989. (DIS 063)
The objectives of this project were (1) to determine whether the system of services as developed by the Division of Developmental Disabilities, DSHS, adequately supported a group of persons with developmental disabilities as they moved from institution to community and (2) to field test a method of determining the adequacy of utilizing citizen volunteers rather than trained research professionals to evaluate the quality of life for people with developmental disabilities.
65. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Idell S. v. Pennsylvania Department Of Public Welfare ÍDPW`l Helen L. v. Didario. 1995. (RIG 608)

Community Living Bibliography

Page 12

This file contains material relating to the landmark case in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit decision holding that it was a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act to keep a person with a disability "unnecessarily segregated" in a nursing home rather than to provide integrated services in the community.
66. U. S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division. Ricky Wyatt v. State of Alabama: Order (December 17. 19911: Ricky Wyatt v. State of Alabama: United States' Response to Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Claims under The ADA: Ricky Wyatt v. State of Alabama: Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Judgment on The Pleadings on Plaintiffs' Claims Under the ADA: Ricky Wvatt v. State of Alabama: Order (March S. 199SÌ. 1991 and 1995. (RIG 619)
This file contains material from two of the Wyatt cases: 1) the Order awarding reasonable fees to prevailing litigants in actions brought to enforce a constitutional right; and 2) Motions and Order concerning the question of discrimination under Title II of the ADA as it relates to the "unnecessary segregation from society" of persons with disabilities.
67. U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Resources Division. Board and Care: Insufficient Assurances That Residents' Needs Are Identified and Met. Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Resources Division; 1989. (RES 004)
This report contains information on (1) the size of the board and care industry, (2) characteristics and needs of board and care home residents, (3) how states are monitoring and regulating board and care homes, and (4) the role the Department of Health and Human Services has played in overseeing board and care.
68. Washington Department of Social and Health Services. Implementation Strategy: to Discourage the Inappropriate Placement of Persons at State Mental Hospitals and Encourage Their Care in Community Settings. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Social and Health Services; 1994. (RES 014)
This report presents the strategies developed by DSHS to discourage the inappropriate placement of persons with developmental disabilities, head injury, and substance abuse at the state mental hospitals and to encourage their care in community settings.
69. Washington Department of Social and Health Services, Aging and Adult Services Administration, Home and Community Services. Options: You Have a Choice. Olympia, WA Washington Department of Social and Health Services, Aging and Adult Services Administration, Home and Community Services; 1996. (SUP 205)
This video describes services that may help adults who have difficulty maintaining their independence because of health-related problems. (15 minutes)
70. Washington Department of Social and Health Services, Home and Community Services Division. Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) Title XIX Home and Community Based Waiver Request.

Community Living Bibliography

Page 13

Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Social and Health Services, Home and Community Services Division; 1994. (HEA 032)
This is a copy of the Home and Community Based Services model waiver request submitted by the Aging and Adult Services Administration of the Department of Social and Health Services. The waiver requests authorization to provide home and community-based services as an alternative to institutionalization for fewer than 200 persons with traumatic brain injuries.
71. Wisconsin Coalition for Advocacy. Out of Sight. Out of Mind. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Coalition for Advocacy; 1986. (RIG 023)
This report concludes that people with severe disabilities, and their families, and their home counties (Wisconsin), deserve a real choice between placement in a Developmental Disability Center or living in the community.
72. Wolfensberger, Wolf. The Origin and Nature of Our Institutional Models. Syracuse, NY: ` Syracuse University; 1975. (RES 035)
This book describes the evolution of institutional care in the U.S. from early "pioneers" to the current era.

//. JOURNAL ARTICLES

1. Blacher, Jan; Baker, Bruce L. "Family Involvement in Residential Treatment of Children with Retardation: Is There Evidence of Detachment?," Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines; vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 505-520.
This study is an examination of family involvement during the initial years after residential placement of children with mental retardation.

2. Bogdan, Robert. "A 'Simple' Farmer Accused of Murder: Community Acceptance and the Meaning of Deviance," Disability. Handicap and Society: vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 303-320.
This article tells the story of Delbert Ward and the small town he lives in. A documentary, Brother's Keeper, was made about Ward's trial over allegations that he murdered his brother, Bill.

3.

. "Looking at the Bright Side: A Positive Approach to Qualitative Policy and Evaluation

Research," Qualitative Sociology: vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 183-192.

This article describes the design of a research study and its implications for both practice

and basic sociological understanding.

4.

. "Relationships with Severely Disabled People: The Social Construction of

Humanness," Social Problems: vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 135-148.

This, article presents the perspectives of non-disabled people who do not stigmatize,

stereotype, and reject those with obvious disabilities.

Community Living Bibliography

Page 14

5.

. "Toward a Sociology of Acceptance: The Other Side of the Study of Deviance,"

Social Policy, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 34-39.

This article discusses a sociology of acceptance, types of accepting relationships based on

the sentiments of family, religious, humanitarian and friendship, and the development of

caring relationships.

6. Brown, Ralph A.; Hill, Betty Anne. "Opportunity for Change: Exploring an Alternative to Residential Treatment," Child Welfare: vol. 75, no. 1, pp. 35-57.
This article reports on an innovative program for children with moderate to severe emotional difficulties which promoted the use of "wraparound" services as an alternative to residential care. \ 7. Crocker, Allen C ; Yankauer, Alfred; Garrard Symposium and Workshop Conference Steering Committee. "Basic Issues," Mental Retardation: vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 227-232. This article presents a summary of the ten basic issues which emerged at the Conference as central to the establishment of successful community health service systems for adults with significant mental retardation.

8. Erb, Robert G. "Where, Oh Where, Has Common Sense Gone? (Or If the Shoe Don't Fit, Why Wear It?)," Mental Retardation: vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 197-199.
This paper reflects the author's "politically incorrect" attitude toward services for individuals with mental retardation.

9. Ervin, Mike. "Land of a Million Elephants." Progressive: vol. 59. no. 2. p. 39. This is the personal account by one of the participants of a disability rights protest at the headquarters of the Republican National Committee.

10. Eyman, Richard K.; Grossman, Herbert J.; Chaney, Robert H.; Call, Thomas L. "The Life Expectancy of Profoundly Handicapped People with Mental Retardation," New England Journal of Medicine: vol. 323, no. 9, pp. 584-589.
This article reports on a study of data on mortality and other factors for 99,543 persons with developmental disabilities, including mental retardation, who received services from the California Department of Developmental Services between March 1984 and October 1987.

11.

. "Survival of Profoundly Disabled People with Severe Mental Retardation," American

Journal of Diseases of Children: vol. 147, no. 3, pp. 329-336.

This article defines further the association between survival and clinical disabilities in

persons who have profound mental retardation. Included in the study were 128,248 of

155,851 persons who received services from the California Department of Developmental

Services between January 1980 and March 1991.

Community Living Bibliography

Page 15

12. Eyman, Richard K.; Olmstead, Charles E.; Grossman, Herbert J.; Call, Thomas L. "Mortality and the Acquisition of Basic Skills by Children and Adults with Severe Disabilities," American Journal of Diseases of Children: vol. 147, no. 2, pp. 216-222.
This article reports on a study to determine normative data on age-related probabilities of children with severe disabilities acquiring mobility or self-feeding skills, or dying during a 5-year follow-up period.
13. Garrard, Sterling G. "Health Services for Mentally Retarded People in Community Residences: Problems and Questions," American Journal of Public Health: vol. 72, no. 11, pp. 1226-1228.
This article presents questions which need to be addressed to assess the adequacy of community health care for persons with mental retardation.
14. Hayden, Mary F. "Stories from the Belly of the Beast: Testimony from Survivors of Institutionalization," submitted to Mental Retardation for review; September 1996. (Dr. Hayden is on the faculty at the University of Minnesota, Research and Training Center on Residential Services and Community Living, Institute on Community Living, Minneapolis, MN.)
This report presents the results of a survey of survivors of institutionalization. It presents, in their own words, their opinions or observations about the differences between living in institutions and living in the community.
15. Kastner, Ted; Luckhardt, Joan. "Medical Services for the Developmentally Disabled," New Jersey Medicine: vol. 87, no. 10, pp. 819-822.
This article reviews the components of a health care delivery system to help meet the special medical needs of people with developmental disabilities.
16. Kastner, Theodore; Criscione, Teri; Walsh, Kevin. "The Role of Tube Feeding in the Mortality of Profoundly Disabled People With Severe Mental Retardation," Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine: vol. 148, no. 5, pp. 537-538.
This paper describes the association between mortality and the presence of a •feeding tube based on a statistical analysis of the data contained in the report by Eyman, et al. ("Survival of Profoundly Disabled People with Severe Mental Retardation," see above) and to suggest further lines of research using the database.
17. Kastner, Theodore; Nathanson, Ruth; Friedman, Debra L.. "Mortality Among Individuals with Mental Retardation Living in the Community," American Journal on Mental Retardation: vol. 98, no. 2, pp. 285-292.
This article presents the results of a study which described and evaluated the deaths of 14 patients from among more than 1,300 people with mental retardation who live in the community and receive their health care from a community-based primary care clinic.
18. Knobbe, Carol A.; Carey, Sean P.; Rhodes, Larry; Homer, Robert H. "Benefit-Cost Analysis of Community Residential Versus Institutional Services for Adults with Severe Mental

Community Living Bibliography

Page 16

Retardation and Challenging Behaviors," American Journal of Mental Retardation: vol. 99, no. 5, pp. 533-541.
This article reports on a benefit-cost analysis conducted to compare services in community residences versus an institution for eleven individuals with severe mental retardation and challenging behaviors who had been moved from an institution to a community setting.
19. Landesman, Sharon; Butterfield, Earl C. "Normalization and Deinstitutionalization of Mentally Retarded Individuals: Controversy and Facts," American Psychologist: vol. 42, no. 8, pp. 809-816.
This article examines the sources of the controversy over normalization with the objective of clarifying the limits of knowledge about treatment [in 1987] and opening the possibility of theory-based evaluation of service delivery.
20. Lindeman, Alice K. "Resident Managers' Nutrition Concerns for Staff and Residents of Group Homes for Mentally Retarded Adults," Journal of the American Dietetic Association; vol. 91, no. 5, pp. 602-604.
This article reports on the results of a needs assessment and the recommendations for staff training, menu design, and nutrition references presented to administrators at each of eight group homes and to a dietician working with the homes.
21. Malmberg, Bo; Zarit, Steven H. "Group Homes for People with Dementia: A Swedish Example," Gerontologist: vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 682-686.
This study evaluated four group homes in Jönköping, Sweden, and concluded that both staff and residents were satisfied with the set up (a social model in which the residents participate in everyday activities in a home-like setting) which was developed as an alternative to traditional institutional care.
22. Miller, C; Eyman, R. "Hospital and Community Mortality Rates Among the Retarded," Journal of Mental Deficiency Research: vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 137-145.
This paper reports on a study which contrasts mortality factors between persons with mental retardation and living in hospital settings with those living in community placements.
23. Minihan, Paula M. "Planning for Community Physician Services Prior to Deinstitutionalization of Mentally Retarded Persons," American Journal of Public Health: vol. 76, no. 10, pp. 1202-1206.
This is the report of a study that assessed the need for physician services among a group of institutionalized individuals with mental retardation in anticipation of their transfer to community residential facilities and subsequent management of their care by communitybased physicians.
24. O'Brien, John. "Down Stairs That Were Never Your Own: Supporting People With Developmental Disabilities in Their Own Homes," Mental Retardation: vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 1-6.

Community Living Bibliography

Page 17

This article discusses the historical and current meanings and dimensions of "house" and "home" for persons with developmental disabilities.

25. O'Connor, Susan. "Supporting Families: What They Want Versus What They Get," OSERS News in Print: vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 7-11.
This article discusses the discrepancy between what families feel they need versus what they get from the human service system with special emphasis on the impact of culture in receiving services.

26. Owen, Margaret Tresch; Mulvihill, Beverly A. "Benefits of a Parent Education and Support

Program`in the First Three Years," Family Relations: vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 206-212.

This study describes an evaluation of a parent education and support program offered to

all parents of newborn children regardless of socio-economic status in three independent

school districts. Potential benefits to the parents and the children were examined over the

3-year course of the program.

,

27. Parsons, Marsha B.; Cash, Victoria B.; Reid, Dennis H. "Improving Residential Treatment Services: Implementation and Norm-Referenced Evaluation of a Comprehensive Management System," Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis: vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 143-156.
This article reports on a study conducted to evaluate the extent and quality of treatment services provided in residential living units (Experiment 1) and to evaluate a comprehensive management system designed to improve such services (Experiment 2).

28. Racino, Julie Ann; Heumann, Judith E. "Independent Living and Community Life: Building Coalitions Among Elders, People with Disabilities, and Our Allies," Generations: vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 43-47.
This article describes societal responses to elders, people with disabilities, and people with mental retardation; highlights independent and supportive living for people of all ages; discusses the issues of housing, personal assistance, and independent living centers; and recommends steps to meet the challenge of maintaining the right for all people to live<and participate in community life.

29. Schloss, Patrick J.; Alper, Sandra; Jayne, Donna. "Self-Determination for Persons with Disabilities: Choice, Risk, and Dignity," Exceptional Children: vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 215-225.
This article presents a rationale for including self-determination in special education curricula. The article describes a framework for providing choices, based on an analysis of risk and benefits and offers assessment approaches and teaching strategies.

30. Strauss, David; Kastner, Theodore A. ''Comparative Mortality of People with Mental Retardation in Institutions and the Community," American Journal on Mental Retardation: vol. 101, no. 1, pp. 26-40.
This paper compares the risk-adjusted mortality rates in institutions and the community in California from 1980 through 1992 with the aim of improving the understanding of the capacity of the community health system to support deinstitutionalization.

Community Living Bibliography

Page 18

31. Taylor, Steven J.; Bogdan, Robert. "On Accepting Relationships Between People with Mental Retardation and Non-Disabled People: Towards an Understanding of Acceptance," Disability. Handicap and Society: vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 21-36.
This article outlines the sociology of acceptance, a theoretical framework for understanding relationships between people with mental reí ardation and people without disabilities.

32. Taylor, Steven J.; Lakin, K. Charlie; Hill, Bradley K. "Permanency Planning for Children and Youth: Out-of-Home Placement Decisions," Exceptional Children: vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 541-549.
This article advocates the extension of the basic protections of "permanency planning" to all children and youth, including those with severe disabilities.

33. Traustadottir, Rannveig. "Mothers Who Care: Gender, Disability, and Family Life," Journal of Family Issues: vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 211-228.
This article is based on a study of families of children with disabilities which examined the role of gender in caring for a child with a disability.

34. Trent, James W., Jr. "Suffering Fools," Sciences: vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 18-22. This article comments on the efforts in the 20th century to change the definition of mental retardation. These efforts opened opportunities to improve the treatment conditions of people with mental retardation and have included the move for deinstitutionalization and proposals to stop using IQ tests for measuring a person's intelligence.

35. Vandergriff, David V.; Chubon, Robert A. "Quality of Life Experienced by Persons with Mental Retardation in Various Residential Settings," Journal of Rehabilitation: vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 30-37.
This article reports on a study conducted to assess the quality of life of persons with mental retardation residing in a variety of residential settings.

36. Walker, Pam. "Promoting Individualized and Integrated Recreation and Leisure Experience," Exceptional Parent: vol. 23, no. 4, p 54.
This article presents strategies for developing the supports that will enable people with disabilities to participate in regular community programs, activities, and settings and for moving away from special recreation and leisure programs.

37.

. "Where There Is a Way, There Is Not Always a Will: Technology, Public Policy, and

the School Integration of Children Who Are Technology-Assisted," Children's Health Care: vol.

20, no. 2, pp 68-74.

This article discusses issues of educational and Medicaid policy regarding payment for

school health care services for children who use assistive technology.

38. Walker, Pam; Edinger, Betsy. "The Kid From Cabin 17," Camping Magazine: vol. 60, no. 7, pp. 18-21.

Community Living Bibliography

Page 19

This article tells the story of Chauncey's summer camp experience and the lessons learned about the integration of children with severe disabilities.
39. Weidlich, Thorn. "A Bureaucracy Lays Siege to Group Homes," National Law Journal: vol. 18, no. 11, p. Al, col. 1.
This news article reports on Judge Elizabeth O'Neill LaStaiti's criticism of officials and lawyers in Massachusetts' Department of Mental Retardation over their treatment of the Providence, Rl, Judge Rotenberg Educational Center. Judge LaStaiti accused department officials of making false claims and abusing discovery practices to shut down the center (formerly known as Behavior Research Institute, Inc.).
40. Weisman, Mary-Lou. "When Parents Are Not in the Best Interests of the Child," Atlantic Monthly.; vol. 274, no. 1, pp. 42-56.
This article describes the programs at several residential treatment centers where children with behavior disorders receive treatment.
41. Woodward, Harold L. "One Community's Response to the Multi-System Service Needs of Individuals with Mental Illness and Developmental Disabilities," Community Mental Health Journal: vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 347-359.
This paper describes some of the barriers individuals and communities confront in developing new or expanding existing services to meet the needs of people with mental illness and mental retardation. It then describes how one community initiated multi-system collaboration in its delivery of crisis intervention services, community mental health center services, and specialized short-term residential living.
42. Ziring, Philip R.; Kastner, Ted; Friedman, Debra L.; Pond, William S.; Barnett, Michael L.; Sonnenberg, Edward M.; Strassburger, Kathryn. "Provision of Health Care for Persons with Developmental Disabilities Living in the Community," Journal of the American Medical Association: vol. 260, no. 10, pp. 1439-1444.
This article describes the program of health care services established by the New Jersey Department of Human Services to supplement the existing generic system of medical care. The supplemental program was developed when the generic system was not able to provide all necessary services to the large number of individuals transferred from state residential facilities to the community.
III. SITE VISIT REPORTS
1. Hulgin, Kathleen; Searl, Julia A. Job Path: Shifting the Focus Beyond Just Work. Syracuse, NY: Center on Human Policy, Syracuse University; 1996.
This report describes how an organization in New York City began to develop alternative day services for people with severe disabilities.

Community Living Bibliography

Page 20

2. Racino, Julie Ann. "People Want the Same Things We All Do": The Story of the Area Agency in Dover. New Hampshire. Syracuse, NY: Center on Human Policy, Syracuse University; 1992.
This report describes a visit to a site in New Hampshire that strives to support people to work, live, and have leisure in the same ways as other community members.
3. Rogan, Pat. Toward Integrated Employment for All. Syracuse, NY: Center on Human Policy, Syracuse University; 1993.
This report describes the development of employment services at Monadnock Developmental Services in Region V of New Hampshire. It includes discussion of system change strategies, practices being used to support people in jobs, and current issues and dilemmas.
4. Shoultz, Bonnie. "Like an Angel that Came to Help Us": The Origins and Workings of New Hampshire's Family Support Network. Syracuse, NY: Center on Human Policy, Syracuse University; 1993.
This report describes New Hampshire's innovative family support services. It details the legislative history of the program as well as its implementation throughout the state, and draws lessons for others interested in developing family-centered programs.
5. Walker, Pam. Coming Home: From Deinstitutionalization to Supporting People in Their Own Homes in Region VI. New Hampshire. Syracuse, NY: Center on Human Policy, Syracuse University; 1993.
This report describes the efforts of the Area Agency for Developmental Services in Region VI, New Hampshire, to shift from supporting people in group homes to supporting them in their own homes. It offers important lessons for agencies/regions facing the dual challenge of institutional closure and promoting quality of life in the community.

IV. OTHER RESOURCE MATERIALS

1. General Accounting Office. Medicaid: Oversight of Institutions for the Mentally Retarded Should Be Strengthened. Washington, D.C.: GAO; 1996.
This report discusses (1) deficient care practices occurring in large Intermediate Care Facilities for the Mentally Retarded (ICF/MR), (2) whether state survey agencies identify all serious deficiencies in these institutions, and (3) weaknesses in Health Care Financing Agency (HCFA) and state oversight.

2. Hagner, David C. The Social Integration of Supported Employees: A Qualitative Study. Syracuse, NY: Research and Training Center on Community Living, Center on Human Policy, Syracuse University; 1989.
This study examines the social interactions that occur within supported employment settings, between workers with disabilities and nondisabled co-workers, and the job

Community Living Bibliography

Page 21

supports at work settings, including the relationships between formal and informal job supports.

3. Hulgin, Kathy; Walker, Pam; Fisher, Ellen; Handley, Mary; Shoultz, Bonnie. Housing for People with Severe Disabilities: A Collection of Resource Materials. Syracuse, NY: Research and Training Center on Community Integration, Center on Human Policy, Syracuse University; 1995.
This information package provides an introduction to housing strategies and resources to promote home ownership by people with disabilities and parents, to make housing more accessible to all people, and to increase the development and use of integrated housing options.

4. Lutfíyya, Zana Marie. Affectionate Bonds: What We Can Learn by Lis†çning \o Friends. Syracuse, NY: Research and Training Center on Community Living, Center on Human Policy, Syracuse University; 1990.
This report describes a study of friendships between people with and without disabilities, including how they met, characteristics of their friendships, and implications.

5. O'Brien, Connie Lyle; O'Brien, John. Making a Move: Advice from People First Members Helping People Move Out of Institutions and Nursing Homes. Syracuse, NY: Research and Training Center on Community Living, Center on Human Policy, Syracuse University; 1990.
This document shares the perspective of about 40 People First members on how People First members can help people move from institutions and nursing homes.

6. O'Brien, John. Designing Policies in Support of Inclusive Community: Questions for Decision Makers. Syracuse, NY: Research and Training Center on Community Living, Center on Human Policy, Syracuse University; 1989.
This paper presents questions for policy makers to examine the effects of funding priorities and service policy decisions on the capacity of communities to include people with disabilities.

7.

. Getting the Job Done: Learning to Expand the Social Resources Available to People

with Severe Disabilities at Work. Syracuse, NY: Research and Training Center on Community

Living, Center on Human Policy, Syracuse University; 1992.

This paper presents ideas on how everyone involved can work together to support people

with severe disabilities at work.

8.

. Supported Living: What's the Difference? Syracuse, NY: Research and Training

Center on Community Living, Center on Human Policy, Syracuse University; 1993.

This paper discusses the differences between supported living and the traditional ways of

providing residential services, based on discussions among representatives of supported

living agencies.

Community Living Bibliography

Page 22

9.

. Working on.,.A Survey of Emerging Issues in Supported Employment for People with

Severe Disabilities. Syracuse, NY: Research and Training Center on Community Living, Center

on Human Policy, Syracuse University; 1990.

This paper presents the common perspectives and themes of groups in seven states

concerned with improving the quality of supported employment.

10. O'Brien, John; O'Brien, Connie Lyle. Assistance with Integrity: The Search for Accountability and the Lives of People with Developmental Disabilities. Syracuse, NY: Research and Training Center on Community Living, Center on Human Policy, Syracuse University; 1993.
This paper is a discussion piece, intended to stimulate controversy and dispute, about support for people who rely on service providers for 24-hour assistance, It addresses the field's concerns about such issues as safety, quality, and the potential for abuse, and calls for major reorganization of the current system of service provision.

11.

. More Than Just a New Address: Images of Organization for Supported Living

Agencies. Syracuse, NY: Research and Training Center on Community Living, Center on Human

Policy, Syracuse University; 1991.

This paper presents a discussion on the changes agencies must make in moving to a

"supported living" approach to community living, and is based on in-depth work with a

number of agencies and individuals across the United States.

12. Searl, Julia. Community Integration Policy and Practice Abstracts. Syracuse, NY: Research and Training Center on Community Living, Center on Human Policy, Syracuse University; 1996.
This is a compilation of abstracts of recent journal articles relevant to community integration for people with developmental disabilities and includes topics of education, employment, policy, communication, and supported living.

13. Silverman, Wayne P.; Zigman, Warren B.; Silver, Ellen Johnson. "Adults with Profound Mental Retardation and Multiple Handicaps: Factors Associated with Mortality," in Community Living for People with Developmental and Psychiatric Disabilities Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press; pp. 82-93; 1992.
This chapter reports on a study designed to examine survival in a group of adults with disabilities (profound mental retardation, minimal adaptive competence, virtually no expressive language or independent mobility, and a history of medical problems) while they were living either in a large service-intensive facility or small residences integrated within the community.

14. Stancliffe, Roger J.; Lakin, K. Charlie. Analysis of Expenditures and Outcomes of Residential Alternatives for Persons with Developmental Disabilities. Syracuse, NY: Research and Training Center on Community Living, Institute on Community Integration, Syracuse University; 1996.
This manuscript, recently submitted for review, examines the expenditures, staffing, and outcomes for 116 adults with severe or profound mental retardation, who moved from

Community Living Bibliography

Page 23

state institutions in Minnesota to various community settings, and a comparison group of 71 persons who remained institutionalized.

15. Traustadottir, Rannveig. Supported Employment: Issues and Resources. Syracuse, NY: Research and Training Center on Community Integration, Center on Human Policy, Syracuse University; 1991.
This information package includes an overview article; three articles which offer different perspectives on employment: a consumer perspective, a parent perspective, and a gender perspective; and an annotated bibliography.

16.

. Supports for Community Living: A Case Study. Syrac lse, NY: Research and

Training Center on Community Integration, Center on Human Policy, Syracuse University; 1991.

This study examines in detail the supports provided to one individual with severe

disabilities and the role this support has in enabling him to become a part of community

life.

17. Walker, Pam. Selected Issues in Family Support: A Compilation of Materials and Resources. Syracuse, NY: Research and Training Center on Community Integration, Center on Human Policy, Syracuse University; 1995.
This information package focuses on selected issues in family support, including: family support principles; limitations of family support programs (related to race/ethnicity, culture, poverty, women, etc.); permanency planning; and state-level systems change advocacy. It contains various articles and annotated references relevant to these issues.

18. Wyden, Ron. "Residential Programs for the Mentally Retarded: Poor Quality Care, Waste and Theft of Millions in Public Reimbursement; Dangerously Inadequate Oversight by Federal, State, and Local Authorities," before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Small Business, Subcommittee on Regulation, Business Opportunities, and Technology, March 29, 1993.
This is a transcript of Rep. Wyden's (Oregon) opening statement to the Subcommittee. Also included is a Subcommittee Staff Memo which presents the results of a year-long investigation of providers of assisted and independent living arrangements for persons with mental retardation.

V. NEWSRULLETINS
1. These bulletins were published through the Impact series of the Institute on Community Integration (UAP) and the Research and Training Center on Residential Services and Community Living at the University of Minnesota:

Community Living Bibliography

Page 24

A. This "Feature Issue on Institution Closures" (Winter 1995/96) contains national information as well as a variety of articles on closing institutions written from the perspectives of self-advocates, professionals, parents, researchers, and policy makers.
B. This "Feature Issue on Supporting Diversity" (Summer 1996) focuses on services for persons with developmental disabilities that support the whole person by acknowledging, respecting, and incorporating aspects of identity such as race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientations, gender, age, and class.
C. In this "Feature Issue on Supported Living" (Autumn 1995), many leaders in the development of supported living describe the challenges and rewards in this new relationship between those who need assistance and those who provide assistance.
2. This newsbulletin was published by the Research and Training Center on Community Integration, Center on Human Policy, Division of Special Education and Rehabilitation, School of Education, Syracuse University:
A. "Community Living for Adults" (November 1989) highlights promising practices, issues, and resources in supporting adults with disabilities in living in the community.
3. This newsletter is published by the Research and Training Center on Residential Services and Community Living, Institute on Community Integration (UAP), University of Minnesota:
A. "Policy Research Brief (July 1996) summarizes the results of a survey of 32 states concerning training and certification requirements for direct service workers supporting people with developmental disabilities in residential settings.
4. This newsletter is published by the National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems (NAPAS):
A. "P&A News" (November/December 1996) presents success stories of supported living—excerpts from people with disabilities who have lived in institutions and now live and thrive in the community.

Community Living Bibliography

Page 25

 
 WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 1 of 24

U.S. District Court WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON (Tacoma)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:96-cv-05906-FDB

CLOSED

People First of WA, et al v. Rainier Residential, et al Assigned to: Hon. Franklin D. Burgess Demand: $0 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Date Filed: 10/21/1996 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff
People First of Washington Inc a Washington corporation on behalf of its members

represented by Cathy E Costanzo CENTER FOR PUBLIC REPRESENTATION 22 GREEN ST NORTHAMPTON, MA 01060 413-586-6024 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Deborah A Dorfman WASHINGTON PROTECTION & ADVOCACY SYSTEM 315 Fifth Avenue South Suite 850 Seattle, WA 98104 206 324 1521 Fax: 206 957 0729 Email: DebbieD@wpas-rights.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth A Stanhope WASHINGTON PROTECTION & ADVOCACY SYSTEM 180 W DAYTON STE 102 EDMONDS, WA 98020 425-776-1199 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Jay Smith WASHINGTON PROTECTION & ADVOCACY SYSTEM 315 5TH AVE S STE 850 SEATTLE, WA 98104

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?937533156973439-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 2 of 24

Plaintiff
James Campbell a real person, by and through his next friend, Dennis Campbell

425-776-1199 Fax: FAX 1-425-776-0601 Email: mikes@wpas-rights.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randal Bruce Brown RANDAL BROWN LAW OFFICE 25913 163RD AVE SE COVINGTON, WA 98042 253-630-0794 Email: brownees2@msn.com TERMINATED: 01/12/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
Steven J Schwartz CENTER FOR PUBLIC REPRESENTATION 22 GREEN ST NORTHAMPTON, MA 01060 413-586-6024 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cathy E Costanzo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah A Dorfman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth A Stanhope (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Jay Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randal Bruce Brown (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/12/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?937533156973439-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 3 of 24

Plaintiff Dennis Scott Campbell next friend of James Campbell
Plaintiff Chris Olson a real person, by and through his next friend Diane Grace

Steven J Schwartz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A Dorfman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth A Stanhope (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Jay Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randal Bruce Brown (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/12/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
Steven J Schwartz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cathy E Costanzo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah A Dorfman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth A Stanhope (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Jay Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?937533156973439-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 4 of 24

Plaintiff Diane Grace next friend to Chris Olson
Plaintiff Houston Williams a real person by and through his next friend and legal guardian Steven Cassio

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randal Bruce Brown (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/12/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
Steven J Schwartz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cathy E Costanzo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah A Dorfman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth A Stanhope (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Jay Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randal Bruce Brown (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/12/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
Steven J Schwartz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cathy E Costanzo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah A Dorfman

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?937533156973439-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 5 of 24

Plaintiff
Steven Cassio next friend and legal guardian of Houston Williams

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth A Stanhope (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Jay Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randal Bruce Brown (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/12/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
Steven J Schwartz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cathy E Costanzo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah A Dorfman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth A Stanhope (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Jay Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randal Bruce Brown (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/12/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?937533156973439-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 6 of 24

Plaintiff Peter Bohnke a real person by and through his next friend John Domenic Revello
Plaintiff John Domenic Revello next friend to Peter Bohnke

Steven J Schwartz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cathy E Costanzo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah A Dorfman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth A Stanhope (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Jay Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randal Bruce Brown (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/12/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
Steven J Schwartz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cathy E Costanzo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah A Dorfman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth A Stanhope (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?937533156973439-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 7 of 24

Plaintiff Dawn Lavery a real person by and through her next friend and legal guardian Emerson Fosner
Plaintiff Emerson Fosner

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Jay Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randal Bruce Brown (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/12/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
Steven J Schwartz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cathy E Costanzo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah A Dorfman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth A Stanhope (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Jay Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randal Bruce Brown (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/12/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
Steven J Schwartz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cathy E Costanzo

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?937533156973439-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 8 of 24

next friend and legal guardian of Dawn Lavery
Plaintiff John Mann a real person by and through his next friend Resa Hayes

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah A Dorfman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth A Stanhope (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Jay Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randal Bruce Brown (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/12/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
Steven J Schwartz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cathy E Costanzo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah A Dorfman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth A Stanhope (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Jay Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?937533156973439-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 9 of 24

Plaintiff Autism Society of Washington Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders etc on behalf of its members
Plaintiff Washington Protection Advocacy System a Washington corporation

Randal Bruce Brown (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/12/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
Steven J Schwartz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cathy E Costanzo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah A Dorfman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth A Stanhope (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Jay Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randal Bruce Brown (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/12/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
Steven J Schwartz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cathy E Costanzo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah A Dorfman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?937533156973439-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 10 of 24

Plaintiff Arc of Washington State Inc The on behalf of its members
Plaintiff Resa Hayes as next friend to John Mann, and all

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth A Stanhope (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Jay Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randal Bruce Brown (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/12/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
Steven J Schwartz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cathy E Costanzo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth A Stanhope (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry A Jones 2118 8TH AVE SEATTLE, WA 98121 206-405-3240 Fax: FAX 405-3243 Email: lawjones@oz.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven J Schwartz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A Dorfman (See above for address)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?937533156973439-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 11 of 24

others similarly situated
V. Defendant The Rainier Residential Habilitation Center
Defendant Michael Lowry in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Washington TERMINATED: 04/08/1997
Defendant

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth A Stanhope (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry A Jones (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/12/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
Michael Jay Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward Joseph Dee ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES PO BOX 40124 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-0124 360-459-6558 Fax: FAX 1-360-438-7400 Email: edward.dee@atg.wa.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Linda D Jellum 139 OAK PARK SQ NEWMAN, GA 30265 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward Joseph Dee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/08/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY
Linda D Jellum (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/08/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?937533156973439-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 12 of 24

Social and Health Services Department of the State of Washington
Defendant Lyle Quasim in his official capacity as the Secretary of the Washington Departament of Social and Health Services
Defendant Developmental Disabilities Division of the State of Washington
Defendant Norm Davis in his official capacity as the Director of the Washington Division of Developmental Disabilities TERMINATED: 04/08/1997

represented by Edward Joseph Dee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JoAnn Sabol ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES PO BOX 40124 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-0124 360-459-6558 Fax: FAX 1-360-438-7400 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Linda D Jellum (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/29/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Edward Joseph Dee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Linda D Jellum (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward Joseph Dee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Linda D Jellum (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward Joseph Dee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/08/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY
Linda D Jellum (See above for address)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?937533156973439-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 13 of 24

Defendant Leanna Lamb in her official capacity as the Superintendent of the Rainier Residential Habilitation Center
Defendant Financial Management Office of the State of Washington
Defendant Gary A Robinson in his official capacity as the Acting Director of the Washington Office of Financial Management
Defendant Timothy Brown in his official capacity as the Acting Director of the Washington Division of Developmental Disabilities Defendant Gary Locke in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Washington
V. Intervenor Defendant

TERMINATED: 04/08/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Edward Joseph Dee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Linda D Jellum (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward Joseph Dee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Linda D Jellum (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward Joseph Dee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Linda D Jellum (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?937533156973439-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 14 of 24

Friends of Rainier Inc

represented by Keith Allen Kemper ELLIS, LI & MCKINSTRY 601 UNION ST STE 4900 SEATTLE, WA 98101-3906 206-682-0565 Fax: FAX 625-1052 Email: kkemper@elmlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 10/21/1996 10/24/1996
10/25/1996 10/25/1996 10/28/1996
10/28/1996 10/28/1996 10/28/1996 10/28/1996 10/28/1996

#

Docket Text

1 CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION (Summons(es) issued) Receipt # 236435 (KM) (Entered: 10/28/1996)

2 APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION to practice on behalf of People First of WA, James Campbell, Dennis Scott Campbell, Chris Olson, Diane Grace, Houston Williams, Steven Cassio, Peter Bohnke, John Domenic Revello, Dawn Lavery, Emerson Fosner, John Mann, Autism Society of WA, WA Prot Advocacy, Arc of WA State Inc Cathy E Costanzo Receipt # 236456 (KM) (Entered: 10/28/1996)

4 DECLARATION/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE upon defendant Leanna Lamb of summons/complaint on 10/23/96 (TW) (Entered: 10/29/1996)

5 DECLARATION/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE upon defendant Rainier Residential of summons/complaint on 10/23/96 (TW) (Entered: 10/29/1996)

3 APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION to practice on behalf of People First of WA, James Campbell, Dennis Scott Campbell, Chris Olson, Diane Grace, Houston Williams, Steven Cassio, Peter Bohnke, John Domenic Revello, Dawn Lavery, Emerson Fosner, John Mann, Autism Society of WA, WA Prot Advocacy, Arc of WA State Inc Steven J Schwartz Receipt # 236457 (KM) (Entered: 10/28/1996)

6 DECLARATION/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE upon defendant Norm Davis of summons/complaint on 10/23/96 (TW) (Entered: 10/29/1996)

7 DECLARATION/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE upon defendant Dev Disabilities Div of summons/complaint on 10/23/96 (TW) (Entered: 10/29/1996)

8 DECLARATION/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE upon defendant Lyle Quasim of summons/complaint on 10/23/96 (TW) (Entered: 10/29/1996)

9 DECLARATION/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE upon defendant Gary A Robinson of summons/complaint on 10/23/96 (TW) (Entered: 10/29/1996)

10 DECLARATION/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE upon defendant Social &

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?937533156973439-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 15 of 24

10/28/1996 10/28/1996
10/29/1996 10/29/1996 10/31/1996 11/02/1996 11/07/1996
12/17/1996 12/17/1996 12/17/1996 12/17/1996 12/17/1996 12/17/1996
12/17/1996 12/17/1996 12/17/1996
12/17/1996

Health Svc of summons/complaint on 10/23/96 (TW) (Entered: 10/29/1996)
11 DECLARATION/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE upon defendant Michael Lowry of summons/complaint on 10/23/96 (TW) (Entered: 10/29/1996)
12 DECLARATION/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE upon defendant Financial Management of summons/complaint on 10/23/96 (TW) (Entered: 10/29/1996)
13 ORDER/NOTICE OF JOINT STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report due 1/13/97 (cc: counsel, Judge) (TW) (Entered: 10/29/1996)
14 ORDER re Discovery & Depositions by Judge Franklin D. Burgess (cc: counsel, Judge) (TW) (Entered: 10/29/1996)
15 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendants by Linda D Jellum (TW) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
LODGED STIP/ORDER extending time to file (TW) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
16 STIPULATED MOTION and ORDER by Judge Franklin D. Burgess extending time to file answer; answer due 12/16/96 (cc: counsel, Judge) (TW) (Entered: 11/08/1996)
17 MOTION by defendants, St of WA, for a more definitive stmt & to strike NOTED FOR 1/17/97 (TW) (Entered: 12/18/1996)
18 MEMORANDUM by defendants in support of motion for a more definitive stmt & to strike [17-1] (TW) (Entered: 12/18/1996)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion for a more definitive stmt & to strike [171] (TW) (Entered: 12/18/1996)
19 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendants by Edward J. Dee (TW) (Entered: 12/18/1996)
20 MOTION by plaintiffs for leave to file an extended brief NOTED FOR 1/3/97 (TW) (Entered: 12/18/1996)
21 DECLARATION of Deborah A Dorfman by plaintiffs in support of motion for leave to file an extended brief [20-1] (TW) (Entered: 12/18/1996)
22 DECLARATION of Randal B Brown by plaintiffs in support of motion for leave to file an extended brief [20-1] (TW) (Entered: 12/18/1996)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion for leave to file an extended brief [20-1] (TW) (Entered: 12/18/1996)
23 MOTION by plaintiffs to shorten time on motion for leave to file an extended brief [20-1] NOTED FOR 12/20/96 (TW) (Entered: 12/18/1996)
24 AFFIDAVIT of Deborah A Dorfman in support of motion to shorten

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?937533156973439-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 16 of 24

12/17/1996
12/17/1996 12/20/1996
12/20/1996
01/02/1997 01/02/1997 01/06/1997 01/06/1997 01/06/1997 01/13/1997 01/13/1997 01/13/1997 01/21/1997 01/21/1997 01/23/1997 01/30/1997 02/03/1997

time on motion for leave to file an extended brief [20-1] [23-1] (TW) (Entered: 12/18/1996)
25 AFFIDAVIT of Randal B Brown in support of motion to shorten time on motion for leave to file an extended brief [20-1] [23-1] (TW) (Entered: 12/18/1996)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion to shorten time on motion for leave to file an extended brief [20-1] [23-1] (TW) (Entered: 12/18/1996)
26 ORDER by Judge Franklin D. Burgess GRANTING P's motion to shorten time on motion for leave to file an extended brief [20-1] [23-1], NOTED FOR 12/20/96 motion for leave to file an extended brief [20-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (TW) (Entered: 12/20/1996)
27 ORDER by Judge Franklin D. Burgess GRANTING P's motion for leave to file an extended brief [20-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (TW) (Entered: 12/20/1996)
28 MOTION by plaintiffs to certify class action NOTED FOR 1/31/97 (TW) (Entered: 01/03/1997)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion to certify class action [28-1] (TW) (Entered: 01/03/1997)
29 NOTICE by Pltfs that the following being correctly NOTED FOR 1/31/97 motion to certify class action (CAR) (Entered: 01/06/1997)
30 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiff of motion to certify class action [28-1], of order lodged [0-0] (CAR) (Entered: 01/06/1997)
31 LETTER by plaintiffs re: motion to certify class action [28-1] (CAR) (Entered: 01/06/1997)
32 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE by plaintiffs' to dfts' motion for a more definitive stmt to strike [17-1] (TW) (Entered: 01/14/1997)
LODGED ORDER: re: DENYING motion for a more definitive stmt & to strike [17-1] (TW) (Entered: 01/14/1997)
33 JOINT STATUS REPORT filed by all parties. Est. Trial Days: 30 (TW) (Entered: 01/14/1997)
34 MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION/RESPONSE by defendants to motion to certify class action [28-1] (TW) (Entered: 01/23/1997)
LODGED ORDER: re: DENYING motion to certify class action [28-1] (TW) (Entered: 01/23/1997)
35 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by defendant of motion response [34-1] (TW) (Entered: 01/24/1997)
36 REPLY by plaintiffs TO RESPONSE to motion to certify class action [28-1] (TW) (Entered: 01/30/1997)
37 MOTION to intervene & defer rulings on mtns by Friends of Rainier

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?937533156973439-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 17 of 24

02/03/1997 02/03/1997 02/03/1997 02/03/1997
02/04/1997 02/06/1997 02/14/1997 02/14/1997 02/20/1997 02/20/1997
02/20/1997 02/20/1997 02/21/1997 03/12/1997 03/12/1997 03/21/1997

NOTED FOR 2/21/97 (TW) (Entered: 02/04/1997)
38 MEMORANDUM in support of motion to intervene & defer rulings on mtns by Friends of Rainier [37-1] (TW) (Entered: 02/04/1997)
39 DECLARATION of Keith Kemper re motion to intervene & defer rulings on mtns by Friends of Rainier [37-1] (TW) (Entered: 02/04/1997)
40 DECLARATION of Thomas J Dean re motion to intervene & defer rulings on mtns by Friends of Rainier [37-1] (TW) (Entered: 02/04/1997)
41 TRIAL NOTICE Discovery cutoff 3/8/98 Motion filing deadline 4/7/98 Pretrial order to be submitted by 6/11/98 Pretrial conference set for 1:30 6/19/98 Trial set for 9:00 7/6/98 Trial briefs to be submitted by 6/11/98 39.1 designation effective 3/18/98 (cc:all counsel) (KM) (Entered: 02/05/1997)
42 DECLARATION of Pat Buker by plaintiffs re motion to certify class action [28-1] (EC) (Entered: 02/05/1997)
43 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING by defendants of declaration [42-1] (EC) (Entered: 02/06/1997)
44 RESPONSE/OPPOSITION by plaintiffs to motion to intervene & defer rulings on mtns by Friends of Rainier [37-1] (TW) (Entered: 02/18/1997)
LODGED ORDER: re: DENYING motion to intervene & defer rulings on mtns by Friends of Rainier [37-1] (TW) (Entered: 02/18/1997)
45 REPLY by Intervenor's TO RESPONSE to motion to intervene & defer rulings on mtns by Friends of Rainier [37-1] (TW) (Entered: 02/24/1997)
46 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION of Thomas J Dean re motion to intervene & defer rulings on mtns by Friends of Rainier [37-1] (TW) (Entered: 02/24/1997)
47 DECLARATION of Keith Kemper re motion to intervene & defer rulings on mtns by Friends of Rainier [37-1] (TW) (Entered: 02/24/1997)
48 DECLARATION of A. Bernice Schrawyer re motion to intervene defer rulings on mtns by Friends of Rainier [37-1] (TW) (Entered: 02/24/1997)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion to intervene & defer rulings on mtns by Friends of Rainier [37-1] (TW) (Entered: 02/24/1997)
49 MOTION by defendants for protective order NOTED FOR 3/28/97 (TW) (Entered: 03/13/1997)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion for protective order [49-1] (TW) (Entered: 03/13/1997)
50 ORDER by Judge Franklin D. Burgess GRANTING dft's motion to strike complaint [17-1]; P's are directed to file an amended cmplt which complies w/ the requirements of FRCP 8(a) (cc: counsel, Judge) (TW) (Entered: 03/21/1997)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?937533156973439-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 18 of 24

03/21/1997 03/21/1997 03/21/1997 03/21/1997 03/21/1997 03/21/1997 03/27/1997 03/31/1997 04/03/1997 04/03/1997 04/08/1997
04/15/1997
04/15/1997
04/17/1997 04/21/1997 04/21/1997 04/21/1997 04/21/1997

51 MOTION by plaintiffs for scheduling order on discovery NOTED FOR 4/11/97 (TW) (Entered: 03/24/1997)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion for scheduling order on discovery [51-1] (TW) (Entered: 03/24/1997)
52 MOTION by plaintiff to shorten time on dfts' motion for protective order [49-1] NOTED FOR 3/28/97 (TW) (Entered: 03/24/1997)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion to shorten time on dfts' motion for protective order [49-1] [52-1] (TW) (Entered: 03/24/1997)
53 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to dfts' motion for protective order [49-1] (TW) (Entered: 03/24/1997)
LODGED ORDER: re: DENYING motion for protective order [49-1] (TW) (Entered: 03/24/1997)
54 REPLY by defendants TO RESPONSE to motion for protective order [49-1] (TW) (Entered: 03/28/1997)
55 AFFIDAVIT of mailing re: Reply Brief in Supp of Mtn for Protective Order [54-1] (JAB) (Entered: 04/01/1997)
56 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE by defendant to motion for scheduling order on discovery [51-1] (TW) (Entered: 04/04/1997)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion for scheduling order on discovery [51-1] (TW) (Entered: 04/04/1997)
57 AMENDED COMPLAINT by plaintiff; terminating Norm Davis, Michael Lowry; adding Resa Hayes, Timothy Brown, Gary Locke (TW) (Entered: 04/09/1997)
58 MOTION by defendants WA State, et al, to dismiss P's ARC & Autism Society - ORA REQ NOTED FOR 5/9/97 (TW) Modified on 04/16/1997 (Entered: 04/16/1997)
59 MEMORANDUM by defendants in support of motion to dismiss P's ARC & Autism Society [58-1] (TW) Modified on 05/05/1997 (Entered: 04/16/1997)
60 NOTICE by defendant that the following is NOTED FOR 5/9/97 motion to dismiss P's ARC & Autism Society (TW) (Entered: 04/17/1997)
61 MOTION by plaintiffs for protective order - ORA REQ NOTED FOR 5/9/97 (TW) (Entered: 04/22/1997)
62 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in support of motion for protective order [61-1] (TW) (Entered: 04/22/1997)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion for protective order - ORA REQ [61-1] (TW) (Entered: 04/22/1997)
63 MOTION by plaintiff to shorten time on motion for protective order [611] NOTED FOR 4/25/97 (TW) (Entered: 04/22/1997)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?937533156973439-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 19 of 24

04/21/1997 04/21/1997 04/21/1997 04/21/1997 04/21/1997 04/21/1997 04/22/1997
04/24/1997 04/24/1997 04/24/1997 04/24/1997 04/24/1997
04/25/1997
04/25/1997 04/25/1997 04/25/1997

64 AFFIDAVIT of Randal B Brown in support of motion to shorten time on motion for protective order [61-1] [63-1] (TW) (Entered: 04/22/1997)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion to shorten time on motion for protective order [61-1] [63-1] (TW) (Entered: 04/22/1997)
65 MOTION by plaintiff Arc of Washington to withdraw request for production of docs NOTED FOR 5/9/97 (TW) (Entered: 04/22/1997)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion to withdraw request for production of docs [65-1] (TW) (Entered: 04/22/1997)
66 MOTION by plaintiffs to withdraw motion to shorten time on dft's mtn for protective order NOTED FOR 5/9/97 (TW) (Entered: 04/22/1997)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion to withdraw motion to shorten time on dft's mtn for protective order [66-1] (TW) (Entered: 04/22/1997)
67 ORDER by Judge Franklin D. Burgess: P's mtn to w/draw request for docs is GRANTED; Dfts' motion for protective order [49-1] is STRICKEN AS MOOT; Ps' motion to shorten time on dfts' motion for protective order [49-1] [52-1] is STRICKEN AS MOOT (cc: counsel, Judge) (TW) (Entered: 04/22/1997)
68 OPPOSITION by dfts to Pltfs' motion for protective order [61-1] (CAR) (Entered: 04/24/1997)
LODGED ORDER DENYING Pltfs' mtn for protective order [61-1] (CAR) (Entered: 04/24/1997)
69 OPPOSITION by dfts to motion to shorten time on motion for protective order [61-1] [63-1] (CAR) (Entered: 04/24/1997)
70 AFFIDAVIT of Linda D Jellum re: dfts' oppositions to mtn for shorten time and mtn for protective order (CAR) (Entered: 04/24/1997)
71 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by dfts of opposition to mtn for protective order [68-1], proposed order [0-0], opposition to mtn to shorten time [691], and 3rd afdt of Linda D Jellum [70-1] (CAR) (Entered: 04/24/1997)
72 ORDER by Judge Franklin D. Burgess GRANTING P's motion to shorten time on motion for protective order [61-1] [63-1], DENYING P's motion for protective order [61-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (TW) (Entered: 04/28/1997)
73 MOTION by plaintiffs for emergency status conference/ hearing NOTED FOR 5/16/97 (TW) (Entered: 04/28/1997)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion for emergency status conference/ hearing [73-1] (TW) (Entered: 04/28/1997)
74 MOTION by plaintiffs to shorten time on motion for emergency status conference/ hearing [73-1] NOTED FOR 5/2/97 (TW) (Entered: 04/28/1997)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?937533156973439-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 20 of 24

04/25/1997 04/29/1997 04/29/1997 05/01/1997 05/01/1997
05/01/1997 05/01/1997 05/01/1997 05/02/1997
05/02/1997 05/02/1997 05/09/1997 05/09/1997 05/13/1997 05/13/1997 05/14/1997

LODGED ORDER: re: motion to shorten time on motion for emergency status conference/ hearing [73-1] [74-1] (TW) (Entered: 04/28/1997)
75 REPLY BRIEF by plaintiffs re: protective order [61-1] (TW) (Entered: 04/30/1997)
76 STATEMENT by plaintiffs of supplemental authority in opposition to motion to intervene & defer rulings on mtns by Friends of Rainier [37-1] (TW) (Entered: 04/30/1997)
77 ORDER by Judge Franklin D. Burgess DENYING motion to certify class action [28-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (CAR) (Entered: 05/01/1997)
78 ORDER by Judge Franklin D. Burgess GRANTING motion to intervene & defer rulings on mtns by Friends of Rainier [37-1] adding intervenordefendant Friends of Rainier Inc. FOR shall file its anser to the first amd cmplt by 5/9/97. (cc: counsel, Judge) (CAR) (Entered: 05/01/1997)
80 ANSWER to complaint [57-1] by defendants (TW) (Entered: 05/05/1997)
81 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF/MEMORANDUM by defendant in opposition to motion for protective order [61-1] (TW) (Entered: 05/05/1997)
82 MEMORANDUM by defendant in opposition to motion to shorten time on motion for emergency status conference/ hearing [73-1] [74-1] (TW) (Entered: 05/05/1997)
79 ORDER by Judge Franklin D. Burgess GRANTING P's motion to shorten time on motion for emergency status conference/ hearing [73-1] [74-1], DENYING P's motion for emergency status conference/ hearing [73-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (TW) (Entered: 05/02/1997)
83 MOTION by plaintiffs to amend first amended cmplt NOTED FOR 5/23/97 (TW) (Entered: 05/05/1997)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion to amend first amended cmplt [83-1] (TW) (Entered: 05/05/1997)
84 MOTION by defendant ST of WA, et al to w/draw dft's mtn to dismiss ARC & Autism Society (TW) (Entered: 05/12/1997)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion to w/draw dft's mtn to dismiss ARC & Autism Society [84-1] (TW) (Entered: 05/12/1997)
85 MOTION by plaintiff to strike/w/draw mtn for scheduling order on discovery (TW) (Entered: 05/14/1997)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion to strike/w/draw mtn for scheduling order on discovery [85-1] (TW) (Entered: 05/14/1997)
86 ORDER by Judge Franklin D. Burgess GRANTING dfts' motion to w/draw dft's mtn to dismiss ARC & Autism Society [84-1] STRIKING motion to dismiss P's ARC & Autism Society [58-1] (cc: counsel, Judge)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?937533156973439-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 21 of 24

05/16/1997
05/29/1997 06/02/1997 07/07/1997 09/10/1997 09/10/1997 09/10/1997 09/23/1997 09/25/1997
09/29/1997 10/06/1997 10/06/1997 10/06/1997 10/06/1997 10/06/1997 10/06/1997

(TW) (Entered: 05/14/1997)
87 ORDER by Judge Franklin D. Burgess GRANTING P's motion to strike/w/draw mtn for scheduling order on discovery [85-1], STRIKING motion for scheduling order on discovery [51-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (TW) (Entered: 05/19/1997)
88 ANSWER to complaint [57-1] by intervenor-defendant Friends of Rainier (TW) (Entered: 06/02/1997)
89 FIRST AMENDED ANSWER [80-1] by defendants in response to P's first amended cmplt (TW) (Entered: 06/03/1997)
90 ORDER by Judge Franklin D. Burgess GRANTING Pla's motion to amend first amended cmplt [83-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (TW) (Entered: 07/08/1997)
91 MOTION by plaintiff to compel production of documents NOTED FOR 9/26/97 (TW) (Entered: 09/11/1997)
92 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in support of motion to compel production of documents [91-1] (TW) (Entered: 09/11/1997)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion to compel production of documents [911] (TW) (Entered: 09/11/1997)
LODGED MOTION/ORDER for continuance of mtn to compel (TW) (Entered: 09/24/1997)
93 STIPULATION and AGREED ORDER by Judge Franklin D. Burgess that pla's mtn to compel is continued; RENOTED FOR 10/10/97 motion to compel production of documents [91-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (TW) (Entered: 09/26/1997)
94 SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL on behalf of Social & Health Svc JoAnn Sabol terminating attorney Linda D Jellum for Social & Health Svc (TW) (Entered: 09/30/1997)
95 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION by defendants to motion to compel production of documents [91-1] (TW) (Entered: 10/07/1997)
96 DECLARATION of Edward J Dee by defendant re motion to compel production of documents [91-1] (TW) (Entered: 10/07/1997)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion to compel production of documents [911] (TW) (Entered: 10/07/1997)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion to compel production of documents [911] (TW) (Entered: 10/07/1997)
97 RESPONSE by intervenor-defendant Friends of Rainier to motion to compel production of documents [91-1] (TW) (Entered: 10/09/1997)
98 DECLARATION of Keith A Kemper by intervenor-defendant Friends of

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?937533156973439-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 22 of 24

10/09/1997 10/17/1997 12/03/1997 12/03/1997 12/03/1997 12/03/1997 12/12/1997 12/12/1997 12/22/1997 01/27/1998 01/27/1998 01/27/1998 01/27/1998 02/02/1998

Rainier re motion to compel production of documents [91-1] (TW) (Entered: 10/09/1997)
99 REPLY by plaintiff TO RESPONSE to motion to compel production of documents [91-1] (KM) (Entered: 10/14/1997)
100 ORDER by Judge Franklin D. Burgess DENYING pla's motion to compel production of documents [91-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (TW) (Entered: 10/17/1997)
101 MOTION by defendant to amend/revise Court Order denying Plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents NOTED FOR 12/19/97 (EC) (Entered: 12/03/1997)
102 DECLARATION of Jan Blackburn by defendant re motion to amend/revise Court Order denying Plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents [101-1] (EC) (Entered: 12/03/1997)
103 DECLARATION of Joann Sabol by defendant re motion to amend/revise Court Order denying Plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents [101-1] (EC) (Entered: 12/03/1997)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion to amend/revise Court Order denying Plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents [101-1] (EC) (Entered: 12/03/1997)
104 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE by plaintiff to motion to amend/revise Court Order denying Plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents [101-1] (TW) (Entered: 12/15/1997)
LODGED ORDER: re:DENYING motion to amend/revise Court Order denying Plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents [101-1] (TW) (Entered: 12/15/1997)
105 RESPONSE by defendant to motion to amend/revise Court Order denying Plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents [101-1] (TW) (Entered: 12/23/1997)
106 JOINT MTN to stay proceedings and adoption of settlement agreement NOTED FOR 2/13/98 (CAR) (Entered: 01/28/1998)
107 DECLARATION of Deborah A. Dorfman re motion to stay proceedings [106-1] and adoption of settlement agreement [106-2] (CAR) (Entered: 01/28/1998)
108 DECLARATION of JoAnn Sabol re motion to stay proceedings [106-1] and motion adoption of settlement agreement [106-2] (CAR) (Entered: 01/28/1998)
LODGED ORDER re: motion to stay proceedings [106-1] and motion adoption of settlement agreement [106-2] (CAR) (Entered: 01/28/1998)
109 ORDER by Judge Franklin D. Burgess DENYING dfts' motion to amend/revise Court Order denying Plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents [101-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (TW) (Entered:

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?937533156973439-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 23 of 24

02/05/1998
02/09/1998 02/09/1998 02/09/1998 02/12/1998 02/20/1998 03/11/1998 03/11/1998 03/30/1998 01/12/1999
01/12/1999 01/12/1999 01/12/1999 01/12/1999 01/15/1999

02/03/1998)
110 ORDER by Judge Franklin D. Burgess GRANTING joint motion to stay proceedings and adopt settlement agreement [106-1] Case stayed until 1/16/99 or until futher order of the court (cc: counsel, Judge) (TW) (Entered: 02/06/1998)
111 RESPONSE by intervenor-defendant Friends of Rainier re: joint motion to stay proceedings [106-1] (TW) (Entered: 02/11/1998)
112 DECLARATION of Keith A Kemper by intervenor-defendant Friends of Rainier re motion to stay proceedings [106-1] (TW) (Entered: 02/11/1998)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion to stay proceedings [106-1] (TW) (Entered: 02/11/1998)
113 REPLY by plaintiff in opposition to resp by FOR re mtn to stay [106-1] (TW) (Entered: 02/13/1998)
114 ORDER by Judge Franklin D. Burgess that Intervenor FOR's Response to Joint mtn to stay case is DENIED (cc: counsel, Judge) (TW) (Entered: 02/23/1998)
115 MOTION by plaintiffs to amend first amended cmplt NOTED FOR 3/27/98 (TW) (Entered: 03/12/1998)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion to amend first amended cmplt [115-1] (TW) (Entered: 03/12/1998)
116 ORDER by Judge Franklin D. Burgess GRANTING pla's motion to amend first amended cmplt a second time [115-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (TW) (Entered: 03/31/1998)
117 SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL on behalf of Resa Hayes, Arc of WA State Inc, WA Prot Advocacy, Autism Society of WA, John Mann, Emerson Fosner, Dawn Lavery, John Domenic Revello, Peter Bohnke, Steven Cassio, Houston Williams, Diane Grace, Chris Olson, Dennis Scott Campbell, James Campbell, People First of WA; Elizabeth A Stanhope terminating attorney Randal Bruce Brown (EC) (Entered: 01/12/1999)
118 JOINT MOTION to stay proceedings NOTED FOR 1/29/99 (EC) (Entered: 01/12/1999)
119 DECLARATION of Michael J. Smith re joint motion to stay proceedings [118-1] (EC) (Entered: 01/12/1999)
120 DECLARATION of JoAnn Sabol re joint motion to stay proceedings [118-1] (EC) (Entered: 01/12/1999)
LODGED ORDER: re: joint motion to stay proceedings [118-1] (EC) (Entered: 01/12/1999)
121 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Franklin D. Burgess that the

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?937533156973439-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 24 of 24

04/12/1999 04/12/1999 04/12/1999 04/12/1999 06/29/1999
12/02/1999 12/06/1999

Court having considered the Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings and the Declarations of counsel grants the motion to stay in this matter, including all motions, discovery, and court dates until 5/3/99 or until further order of the court (cc: counsel, Judge) (CAR) (Entered: 01/15/1999)
122 JOINT MOTION for additional stay of proceedings NOTED FOR 4/30/99 (EC) (Entered: 04/12/1999)
123 ADDITIONAL DECLARATION of Michael J. Smith re joint motion for additional stay of proceedings [122-1] (EC) (Entered: 04/12/1999)
124 DECLARATION of Joann Sabol re joint motion for additional stay of proceedings [122-1] (EC) (Entered: 04/12/1999)
LODGED ORDER: re: joint motion for additional stay of proceedings [122-1] (EC) (Entered: 04/12/1999)
125 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Franklin D. Burgess: GRANTING joint motion for additional stay of proceedings [122-1] STAYED Case mgt ddl is 7/31/99 (cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) (Entered: 06/29/1999)
PROPOSED Joint Mtn/Order for Voluntary Dismissal w/prejudice (CAR) (Entered: 12/03/1999)
126 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Franklin D. Burgess that this matter is dismissed with prejudice; Dfts' shall pay pltfs' reasonable attys' fees & costs in the total amt of $75,000 w/i 60 days of entry of this order. case termed. (cc: counsel, Judge) (CAR) (Entered: 12/07/1999)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

10/27/2005 13:09:19

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

3:96-cv-05906-FDB

Billable Pages:

14

Cost: 1.12

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?937533156973439-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005