Source: https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/olmstead_cases_list2.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 05:12:06+00:00

Document:
On July 23, 2013, the United States, individual plaintiffs, and the State of New York filed a settlement agreement in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The agreement remedies discrimination by the State in the administration of its mental health service system and ensures that individuals with mental illness who reside in 23 large adult homes in New York City receive services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs consistent with the ADA and Olmstead. Under the agreement, such individuals will have the opportunity to live and receive services in the community such that they are able to live, work, and participate fully in community life.
The parties filed an amended settlement agreement on January 30, 2014, and the Court approved the amended settlement agreement on March 17, 2014. The parties filed a second amended settlement agreement on May 4, 2017, which the Court approved on May 18, 2017. The parties filed a supplement to the second amended settlement agreement on March 16, 2018, which the Court approved on September 6, 2018.
Prior to the agreement, the parties litigated these issues in Disability Advocates v. Paterson, in the District Court and in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In that case, following a trial on the merits, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York ruled that New York State officials and agencies discriminated against thousands of people with mental illness by administering the State's mental health service system in a manner that segregated them in large, institutional adult homes and denied them the opportunity to receive services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs.
The DOJ intervened during the remedy phase of the case and participated in the appeal. On April 6, 2012, the Second Circuit vacated the remedial order and judgment of the District Court and dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction.
On June 6, 2018, the United States filed its Complaint, a Joint Motion to Dismiss, and an Agreement to Resolve its investigation in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. The Agreement lays out relief for individuals with serious mental illness in nursing facilities across the State, with provisions requiring intensified transition and diversion efforts to home and community-based services and community-based mental health services, including supportive housing, ACT, substance use disorder services, and crisis services, to ensure individualized service planning and support successful community tenure.
On August 23, 2012, the United States entered a comprehensive, eight-year settlement agreement with the State of North Carolina resolving the Civil Rights Division's ADA Olmstead investigation of the State's mental health service system, which currently serves thousands of individuals with mental illness in large adult care homes. The Agreement will expand access to community-based supported housing – integrated housing that promotes inclusion and independence and enables individuals with mental illness to participate fully in community life.
Pursuant to the Agreement, the State will provide community-based supported housing to 3,000 individuals who currently reside in, or are at risk of entry into, adult care homes. A person-centered discharge planning process is designed to ensure individuals are able to transition successfully to community-based settings, while a pre-admission screening process will prevent more individuals from being unnecessarily institutionalized. The Agreement will also ensure that thousands of people with mental illness have access to critical community-based mental health services such as Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) teams, and will expand integrated employment opportunities for individuals with mental illness by providing supported employment services to 2,500 individuals. The Agreement also requires development of a crisis service system that offers timely and accessible services and supports in the least restrictive setting, including mobile crisis teams, walk-in crisis clinics, short-term community hospital beds, and 24/7 crisis hotlines.
On January 9, 2017, the United States moved to enforce the supported housing and supported employment provisions of the Agreement, which the Court granted on September 21, 2017. The parties then jointly moved to extend the duration of the Agreement by one year. On November 1, 2017, the Court entered an order modifying the Agreement, which now expires on July 1, 2021.
On August 23, 2016, the United States filed a lawsuit against the State of Georgia in federal district court to remedy violations of the ADA pertaining to the State’s failure to provide thousands of public school students with behavior-related disabilities with appropriate mental health and therapeutic educational services and supports in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. The lawsuit alleges that, as a result of the manner in which Georgia plans, funds, administers, and delivers its mental health and therapeutic educational services through the Georgia Network for Educational and Therapeutic Support Program (“GNETS Program”), students with disabilities are unnecessarily segregated and provided unequal educational opportunities in GNETS Centers and Classrooms, where they are isolated from their non-disabled peers, when they could be served in general education classrooms. The lawsuit further alleges that other students with behavior-related disabilities are placed at serious risk of segregation in the GNETS Program.
On July 15, 2015, the United States sent its findings to the State of Georgia stating that the State’s administration of the Georgia Network for Educational and Therapeutic Support (GNETS) program violates Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act by unnecessarily segregating students with disabilities from their peers in school. The State fails to ensure that students with behavior-related disabilities receive services and supports that could enable them to remain in, or return to, the most integrated educational placements appropriate to their needs.
On August 22, 2016, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in the case of Ball v. Kasich. In Ball, individuals on a wait list for home- and community-based services allege that Ohio’s ongoing denial of services has placed them at serious risk of institutionalization. The Statement of Interest clarifies that non-institutionalized individuals with disabilities who are not currently receiving state-funded home- and community-based services may bring a claim that a public entity has placed them at risk of institutionalization or segregation in violation of Title II’s “integration mandate.” The Statement of Interest also makes clear that a serious risk of institutionalization need not be imminent to state a valid Olmstead claim.
The United States issued a findings letter in December 2011 concluding that Mississippi is violating the ADA's integration mandate in its provision of services to people with developmental disabilities and mental illness. Following an investigation, the Department found that the State of Mississippi has failed to meet its obligations under the ADA by unnecessarily institutionalizing persons with mental illness or developmental disabilities and failing to ensure that they are offered a meaningful opportunity to live in integrated community settings appropriate to their needs. The Department recommended that the State implement remedial measures, including the development of community-based services for people with developmental disabilities or mental illness who are unnecessarily institutionalized, or at risk of unnecessary institutionalization.
On August 11, 2016, the United States filed a lawsuit against the State of Mississippi, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons (“CRIPA”) alleging it violates Title II of the ADA and Olmstead by unnecessarily segregating people with mental illness in its state hospitals and placing people with mental illness at serious risk of hospitalization as a result of insufficient community-based services. The complaint alleges that the state’s failure to provide services in community settings forces adults with mental illness to access services in segregated state hospitals, including the Mississippi State Hospital, East Mississippi State Hospital, North Mississippi State Hospital, and South Mississippi State Hospital.
For more information about this case, visit the Special Litigation Section's website.
On September 8, 2015, the United States entered into a settlement agreement with the State of Oregon to vindicate the civil rights of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD) who are unnecessarily segregated in sheltered workshops, or at risk of such unnecessary segregation. The settlement agreement with Oregon resolves a class action lawsuit by private plaintiffs in which the Department moved to intervene in May 2013. The lawsuit alleged that the State's employment service system over-relied on segregated sheltered workshops to the exclusion of integrated alternatives, such as supported employment services, and placed individuals, including youth, at risk of entering sheltered workshops.
As a result of the proposed settlement, over the next seven years, 1,115 working-age individuals with I/DD who are currently being served in segregated sheltered workshops will have opportunities to work in real jobs at competitive wages. Additionally, at least 4,900 youth ages 14 - 24 years old will receive supported employment services designed to assist them to choose, prepare for, get, and keep work in a typical work setting. Half of the youth served will receive, at a minimum, an Individual Plan for Employment through the State's Office of Vocational Rehabilitation Services. Correspondingly, the State will reduce its reliance on sheltered workshops and implement policies and capacity-building strategies to improve the employment system to increase access to competitive integrated employment and the opportunity for people with I/DD to work the maximum number of hours consistent with their abilities and preferences.
The settlement agreement was approved by U.S. Magistrate Judge Janice Stewart of the District of Oregon, who is presiding over the lawsuit, on December 29, 2015.
Sonnenberg v. Disability Rights Idaho, Inc. - 1:14-cv-00369-EJL | (PDF) -- On July 20, 2015, the Division filed a Statement of Interest in Sonnenberg v. Disability Rights Idaho, Inc., a case in which a county coroner refused to provide its investigatory records to a protection and advocacy organization. The protection and advocacy organization sought declaratory relief under the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness (“PAIMI”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 10801-10851 (1991), which allows access to records of an “agency charged with investigating reports of incidents of abuse, neglect, and injury occurring at such [a] facility [rendering care and treatment].” The Statement of Interest expressed the United States’ view that a coroner is an “agency” within the meaning of PAIMI, that PAIMI preempts state privacy laws, and that protection and advocacy organizations determine when there is sufficient probable cause to justify access.
On June 12, 2014, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in the case of Smith v. Department of Public Welfare of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In Smith, the Plaintiffs alleged that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania put them at serious risk of institutionalization by reducing funding for Act 150, a state-funded program providing attendant care services in the community. The Statement of Interest highlights the legal principles governing ADA claims, including the fact that individuals who are at risk of entering an institution because of a state policy need not wait until they enter the institution in order to assert an ADA integration claim. The Statement of Interest also addressed what constitutes a request for a reasonable accommodation for the purposes of bringing an ADA integration claim.
On April 8, 2014, the United States entered into the nation’s first statewide settlement agreement vindicating the civil rights of individuals with disabilitieswho are unnecessarily segregated in sheltered workshops and facility-based day programs. The settlement agreement with the State of Rhode Island resolves the Civil Rights Division’s January 6, 2014 findings, as part of an ADA Olmstead investigation, that the State’s day activity service system over-relies on segregated settings, including sheltered workshops and facility-based day programs, to the exclusion of integrated alternatives, such as supported employment and integrated day services.
The settlement agreement provides relief to approximately 3,250 individuals with I/DD over ten years. Rhode Island will provide supported employment placements to approximately 2,000 individuals, including at least 700 people currently in sheltered workshops, at least 950 people currently in facility-based non-work programs, and approximately 300-350 students leaving high school. Individuals in these target populations will receive sufficient services to support a normative 40 hour work week, with the expectation that individuals will work, on average, in a supported employment job at competitive wages for at least 20 hours per week. In addition, the State will provide transition services to approximately 1,250 youth between the ages of 14 and 21, ensuring that transition-age youth have access to a wide array of transition, vocational rehabilitation, and supported employment services intended to lead to integrated employment outcomes after they leave secondary school. The U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island has entered the settlement agreement as a court-enforceable Consent Decree.
On July 22, 2013, the United States filed a lawsuit against the State of Florida in federal district court to remedy ADA violations involving the State's failure to provide services and supports to children with disabilities in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. The lawsuit alleges that, as a result of the manner in which Florida administers its service system for children with significant medical needs, children with disabilities are unnecessarily segregated in nursing facilities when they could be served in their family homes or other community-based settings. The lawsuit further alleges that the State's policies and practices place other children with significant medical needs in the community at serious risk of institutionalization in nursing facilities. On December 6, 2013, the Court consolidated this case with A.R. v. Dudek, No. 12-cv-60460 (S.D. Fla. 2012), a private lawsuit alleging that the State's policies and practices have caused children with disabilities to be unnecessarily placed in nursing facilities, or at risk of placement in nursing facilities.
On March 31, 2014, the United States filed a statement of interest in opposition to the State's renewed motion to dismiss the private plaintiffs' Complaint. Previously, in June 2012 and April 2013, the Department filed two Statements of Interest in T.H. v. Dudek.
On April 7, 2016, the United States filed an Opposition to the State of Florida’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. In the Motion, the State had asked the Court to rule, on a variety of grounds, that the United States could not recover damages for unnecessarily institutionalized children to whom the State had been deliberately indifferent. The Opposition sets forth the United States’ view, inter alia, that it may recover such damages, that it may do so with proof of general (or presumed) damages, that the statute of limitations does not bar any of the damages sought, and that there is sufficient evidence on which the Court could find deliberate indifference in this case.
On February 5, 2014 the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Disability Rights Mississippi v. Mississippi Children's Home Services, a case in which the defendants have denied monitoring access to the local protection and advocacy organization. The Statement of Interest expresses the United States' view that regular monitoring visits, including unaccompanied access to residents of a facility, are a critical aspect of protection and advocacy organizations' work and are authorized by the Protection and Advocacy Acts.
On September 13, 2013, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Sciarrillo v. Christie, a case in which private plaintiffs oppose the state's deinstitutionalization plan for its facilities housing people with developmental disabilities. The Statement of Interest expresses the United States' view that plaintiffs failed to assert a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
In December 2013, the District Court of New Jersey dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit, rejecting this “obverse Olmstead” argument.
The United States filed a Statement of Interest opposing Mississippi officials' Motion to Dismiss the complaint of Medicaid-eligible children with significant behavioral disorders who allege that the State of Mississippi fails to ensure that medically necessary services are provided to Medicaid-eligible children in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs in violation of the ADA and the EPSDT provisions of the Medicaid Act.
The motion to dismiss was heard by a magistrate judge who ruled in favor of the State and recommended dismissal of the Medicaid EPSDT claim. The plaintiffs filed an objection with the District Court, and the United States filed another Statement of Interest. The State responded to plaintiffs' objection. The Objection is pending before the Court.
On September 20, 2012, the Court granted the United States' request to intervene in a pending lawsuit against the State of Texas. The suit claims that Texas unnecessarily segregates individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities in nursing facilities, and that this violates the law under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
The United States filed a Statement of Interest on June 26, 2013, supporting the Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification. The United States previously filed a Statement of Interest on October 3, 2011, opposing the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment. The pending lawsuit alleges that the District of Columbia violates the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by unnecessarily segregating individuals with physical disabilities in nursing facilities.
On June 13, 2013, the United States entered a court-enforceable interim settlement agreement with the State of Rhode Island and the City of Providence which resolved the Civil Rights Division's findings, as part of an ADA Olmstead investigation, that the State and City have unnecessarily segregated individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD) in a sheltered workshop and segregated day activity service program, and have placed public school students with I/DD at risk of unnecessary segregation in that same program. The first-of-its-kind agreement will provide relief to approximately 200 Rhode Islanders with I/DD who have received services from the segregated sheltered workshop and day activity service provider Training Thru Placement, Inc. (TTP), and the Harold A. Birch Vocational Program (Birch), a special education program which has run a segregated sheltered workshop inside a Providence high school.
Pursuant to the Interim Settlement Agreement, the State and City will give TTP and Birch service recipients the opportunity to receive integrated supported employment and integrated daytime services that will enable them to interact with the broader community to the fullest extent possible. The State will no longer provide services or funding for new participants at TTP's sheltered workshop and segregated day program, and the City will no longer provide services or funding to Birch's in-school sheltered workshop, which has served as a pipeline to TTP. Instead, over the next year, the State and City will provide adults at TTP and youth in transition from Birch with robust and person-centered career development planning, transitional services, supported employment placements, and integrated day services. The Interim Settlement Agreement calls for individuals to receive sufficient service to support a normative 40 hour work week, with the expectation that individuals will work, on average, in a supported employment job at competitive wages for at least 20 hours per week.
Faces of Olmstead - Read several individuals' stories.
On January 26, 2012, the Division filed in District Court a Complaint and a simultaneous Settlement Agreement resolving its ADA Olmstead investigation into whether persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities in Virginia are being served in the most integrated settings appropriate to their needs.
The fundamental goals of the Agreement are to prevent the unnecessary institutionalization of individuals with developmental disabilities who are living in the community, including thousands of individuals on waitlists for community-based services, and ensure that people who are currently in institutions - at the Commonwealth's training centers or in other private but state-funded facilities - have a meaningful opportunity to receive services that meet their needs in the community.
Pursuant to the Agreement, the Commonwealth will create a total of approximately 4,200 home and community-based waivers for people who are on waitlists for community services and individuals transitioning from institutional settings over a ten year period. Almost 3,000 of these waivers will be targeted to individuals with intellectual disabilities on the waitlist or youth with intellectual disabilities in private facilities; another 450 waivers will be targeted to individuals with non-intellectual developmental disabilities on the waitlist or youth in private facilities; and another 800 waivers will be targeted to individuals choosing to leave the training centers. An additional 1,000 individuals on waitlists for community services will receive family supports to help provide care in their family home or their own home.
Under the Agreement, the Commonwealth will also create a comprehensive community crisis system with a full range of crisis services, including a hotline, mobile crisis teams, and crisis stabilization programs, to divert individuals from unnecessary institutionalization or other out-of-home placements. The Agreement requires the Commonwealth to develop and implement an "Employment First" policy to prioritize and expand meaningful work opportunities for individuals with developmental disabilities. In addition, the Agreement will create an $800,000 fund for housing assistance to facilitate opportunities for independent living for people with developmental disabilities. Finally, the Agreement requires the Commonwealth to create a strong and comprehensive quality and risk management system to ensure that community-based services are safe and effective.
The Agreement is court enforceable and will be monitored by an independent reviewer with the capacity to hire staff to assist in the implementation and to conduct compliance and incident reviews.
After taking public comment and holding a fairness hearing, the Court approved the settlement agreement subject to certain modifications, which were agreed to by the Commonwealth and the United States. The Court entered the settlement agreement as a final order on August 23, 2012.
On February 10, 2011, the United States issued a Findings Letter concluding that Virginia is in violation of the ADA integration mandate in the operation of its developmental disabilities services.
Interest to provide its interpretation of the ADA.
On March 14, 2013, the parties in United States v. Marion County Nursing Home District d/b/a Maple Lawn Nursing Home filed a Settlement Agreement. The Agreement addresses whether residents of the nursing home are being served in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. The Agreement also addresses basic elements of residents' care and treatment. Maple Lawn is required to develop numerous improvement measures. An independent monitor has been selected to monitor the Settlement Agreement.
On April 15, 2013, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in ILADD v. Quinn. Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction to stop the planned closure of two state-run centers for people with developmental disabilities. We argue that Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the regulations, and the case law do not support the claim that the ADA gives persons in state-run centers a right to remain in those institutions and to stop the State's efforts to rebalance its service system toward community based care.
On December 19, 2013, the Department, along with a coalition of private plaintiff organizations, entered into a comprehensive Settlement Agreement with the State of New Hampshire that will significantly expand and enhance mental health service capacity in integrated community settings over the next six years. The Agreement is a full consent decree entered by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire as a Court order on February 12, 2014. The Agreement also provides for regular compliance reviews and public reporting by an independent monitor."
The Agreement will enable a class of thousands of adults with serious mental illness to receive expanded and enhanced services in the community, which will foster their independence and enable them to participate more fully in community life. It will significantly reduce visits to hospital emergency rooms and will avoid unnecessary institutionalization at State mental health facilities, including New Hampshire Hospital (the State’s only psychiatric hospital) and the Glencliff Home (a State-owned and –operated nursing facility for people with mental illness).
The Agreement requires the State, for the first time, to create mobile crisis teams in the most populated areas of the State and to create crisis apartments to help support team efforts at avoiding hospitalization or institutionalization. The Agreement also requires the State to make enhanced Assertive Community Treatment (“ACT”) team services available statewide, such that the mental health system can provide ACT to at least 1,500 people at any given time. The Agreement requires the State to provide scattered-site, permanent, supported housing to hundreds of additional people throughout the state; the State will also create special residential community settings to address the needs of persons with complex health care issues who have had difficulty accessing sufficient community services in the past. The State will also deliver additional and enhanced supported employment services, consistent with the Dartmouth evidence-based model, to hundreds of new recipients throughout the state.
The Settlement Agreement resolves litigation that had been contested for well over a year. Private Plaintiffs filed the initial complaint in February 2012, and on April 4, 2012, the Court granted the Department’s motion to intervene. On April 7, 2011, the United States had issued a Findings Letter concluding that the State of New Hampshire was failing to provide services to individuals with mental illness in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs in violation of the ADA, which led to the needless and prolonged institutionalization of individuals with disabilities and placed individuals with disabilities at risk of unnecessary institutionalization. On September 17, 2013, after months of discovery and a hearing with oral argument, the Court certified a class of Plaintiffs consistent with parameters supported by Plaintiffs and the United States. Shortly thereafter, settlement talks resumed which produced the instant Agreement.
The United States filed a Statement of Interest in Hunter v. Cook, in opposition to the state of Georgia's argument that serious risk of institutionalization is not a viable claim under Title II of the ADA. The Plaintiffs' suit is a proposed class action under Title II of the ADA, the Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C.§ 1396a et seq., and the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's administration of the Department of Community Health and the Medicaid program denies, limits, and reduces their nursing services in a manner that puts Plaintiffs at risk of unnecessary confinement or out of home care in violation of the ADA.
In a suit brought on behalf of approximately 45,000 individuals with disabilities who receive personal care services through Washington State's Medicaid program, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction in January 2011, which the District Court denied in February 2011. On December 16, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the district court and granted injunctive relief with respect to the named plaintiffs, finding that plaintiffs had demonstrated that the State's cuts placed them at serious risk of institutionalization in violation of the ADA. The court relied, in part, upon DOJ's previously filed Statement of Interest.
On July 6, 2011 the Division filed in District Court a Complaint and a simultaneous Settlement Agreement resolving its ADA Olmstead investigation into whether persons with mental illness in Delaware are being served in the most integrated settings appropriate to their needs and its CRIPA investigation into conditions of confinement at Delaware Psychiatric Center.
The fundamental goals of the Agreement are: to ensure that people who are unnecessarily institutionalized, at the Delaware Psychiatric Center or other inpatient psychiatric facilities, can receive the treatment they need in the community; to ensure that when individuals go into mental health crisis, sufficient resources are available in the community so that they do not need to go unnecessarily to psychiatric hospitals or jails; and to ensure that people with mental illness who are living in the community are not forced to enter institutions because of the lack of stable housing and intensive treatment options in the community.
Pursuant to the Agreement, Delaware will create a comprehensive community crisis system to serve as the front door to the state's mental health system including a crisis hotline, mobile crisis teams able to reach someone anywhere in the state within one hour, 2 walk-in crisis centers, and short term crisis stabilization units. The agreement also commits the state to providing intensive community-based treatment through 11 Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) teams, 4 intensive case management teams, and 25 targeted case managers. The State will offer at least 650 housing vouchers or subsidies to allow people to obtain stable, integrated housing. Finally, the State will develop evidence-based supported employment services for 1100 people, rehabilitation services including substance abuse and educational services to 1100 people, and family and peer support services to 1000 people. The Agreement requires Delaware to establish a statewide quality management system reflecting qualitative and quantitative measures and provides for an independent monitor with capacity to hire staff to assist in the implementation and to conduct compliance reviews.
The United States issued a Findings Letter in November 2010 stating that Delaware is violating the ADA integration mandate in its provision of mental health services.
In July 2010, the United States filed an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief in this class action. We supported the arguments made by a class of individuals with developmental disabilities who sought to end their unjustified segregation in Pennsylvania's large, publicly-run congregate care institutions. In January 2011, the Court ruled in favor of the class members, finding that Defendants had violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12134, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, by unnecessarily institutionalizing the class members. Mem. & Order, Benjamin v. Department of Public Welfare, No. 09-cv-1182 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 27, 2011). The Court encouraged the parties to negotiate an agreement to remedy that violation. The parties submitted a settlement agreement for the Court's approval in May 2011. The Court held a fairness hearing to determine whether the agreement was fair, adequate, and reasonable. Following the hearing, in September 2011, the Court approved the agreement.
Since that time, representatives of a group of individuals who live in these state institutions and wish to remain there have appealed the Court's order approving the settlement agreement to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. (Benjamin et al. v. Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, et al., Nos. 11-3684, 11-3685 (3d Cir.)). They argue that the relief given to the class members will hurt their ability to stay in the institutions. They also argue that the settlement agreement should not have been approved because it assumes that institutionalized individuals who are unable to express a preference regarding their placements can be moved to community-based services if appropriate. The class members and Pennsylvania defendants together filed a brief opposing those arguments on April 3, 2012. Shortly thereafter, the United States filed an amicus curiae brief supporting the settlement agreement. We argued that the settlement agreement is fair and reasonable. We also explained that because federal law strongly favors the integration of individuals with disabilities into the community over segregation in large institutions, an institutionalized person who can live in the community but cannot express a preference regarding placement and has no guardian or involved family member, should be provided with community-based services.
In December 2012, the Third Circuit ruled that the group of individuals who wish to remain in the state's congregate care institutions has an interest in the settlement agreement and that those individuals were not adequately represented by any other party in the lawsuit. The Third Circuit therefore reversed the district court's order approving the settlement and sent the case back to the district court. The Third Circuit ruled that this time, the group of individuals must be permitted to participate in the remaining stages of the lawsuit. The case is now back before the district court.
The United States filed a Statement of Interest on July 12, 2011 and October 31, 2011 in support of Plaintiffs' challenge to the manner in which the State plans to eliminate the Adult Day Health Care (ADHC) service, which enables elderly individuals and individuals with physical and mental disabilities to live in the community and avoid hospitalization and institutionalization. The United States argued that the State's plan to eliminate ADHC without ensuring sufficient alternative services are available will place thousands of individuals who currently receive ADHC services at serious risk of institutionalization, in violation of the ADA. Approximately 35,000 Californians would be affected by the proposed ADHC elimination.
Previously, Plaintiffs successfully obtained two preliminary injunctions preventing the state from (1) reducing the maximum number of days of available ADHC services per week, and (2) implementing more restrictive eligibility criteria for the ADHC service. The State has appealed the second preliminary injunction halting the state's alterations to eligibility criteria, and the United States filed a brief supporting Plaintiffs-Appellees in June 2010. That appeal is currently pending before the Ninth Circuit.
On January 10, 2012, The United States filed comments supporting final approval of the parties' proposed Settlement Agreement. On January 24, 2012, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted final approval of the Settlement Agreement.
The United States filed a Statement of Interest on January 9, 2012 regarding Plaintiffs' challenge to a twenty percent reduction in personal care services provided through the State's In-Home Support Services (IHSS) program. IHSS is designed to enable elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities to avoid hospitalization and institutionalization. On January 19, 2012, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction.
Previously, the Court preliminarily enjoined the State's planned implementation of more restrictive eligibility criteria for the IHSS program that would reduce or terminate IHSS services. The State has appealed the preliminary injunction, and the United States filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals supporting Plaintiffs-Appellees on March 2, 2010. That appeal is currently pending.
On November 18, 2011, Comments of the United States in Support of Final Approval of the Proposed Settlement Agreement were filed in support of the parties' agreement to the manner in which the State will provide an array of intensive, community-based mental health services to Medi-Cal eligible foster children or children at-risk of entry into the foster-care system. The United States argued that the parties' Settlement Agreement, agreed upon after nine years of litigation, was "fair and reasonable" and advances the important public interest of compliance with title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment ("EPSDT") provisions of the Medicaid Act.
The United States filed a complaint on January 16, 2009, against the State of Arkansas and Arkansas officials alleging violations of the ADA, the U.S. Constitution, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act at the State's Conway Human Development Center for failing to provide services to facility residents in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs; subjecting them to unconstitutional conditions; and depriving them of a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment.
On June 8, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed the action with prejudice.
In September 2010, a group of four individuals with disabilities who receive and depend on Medicaid Personal Care Services (PCS) in order to remain in the community and to prevent hospitalization and institutionalization filed suit to prevent the State of Louisiana from reducing the maximum number of PCS hours available each week. If the State moved forward with the reduction in services, the Plaintiffs argued, they and other individuals with disabilities would be placed at risk of institutionalization. In April 2011, the United States filed a brief supporting the Plaintiffs' argument that the cuts would place individuals with disabilities at risk of institutionalization and urging the Court to deny the State's Motion for Summary Judgment. In May 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana denied the State's Motion for Summary Judgment. In June 2011, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify a Statewide Class of Individuals affected by the reduction in PCS services.
At the urging of the Department of Justice, a Federal court denies the State of Louisiana's request to dismiss a lawsuit brought by individuals with disabilities affected by the State's reduction in personal care services.
In a suit brought by individuals who need incontinence supplies to live in the community, the court issued an order on June 24, 2011 requiring the State of Missouri to provide Medicaid-funded incontinence supplies to individuals who need those supplies to prevent their placement in nursing facilities. The United States filed a Statement of Interest supporting Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that Missouri's policy not to provide the necessary supplies placed individuals at risk of institutionalization in violation of the ADA.
Following a remand from the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in support of a Consent Decree remedying alleged failures by Tennessee officials to provide adequate health services and treatment to thousands of Medicaid-eligible children in violation of the early and periodic screening, diagnostic and treatment (EPSDT) provisions of the Medicaid Act.
On March 1, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee entered preliminary findings, concluding that, because the EPSDT provisions of the Medicaid Act at issue in the case are privately enforceable and require States to provide services and treatment to Medicaid-eligible children, the majority of the Consent Decree should remain in effect.
This class of plaintiffs—consisting of all Medicaid-eligible adults with disabilities who currently, or at any time during the litigation, are unnecessarily confined to a nursing facility and desire to and are capable of residing in the community—claims that the State of Florida's refusal to provide services in the community to these individuals violates the ADA's integration mandate.
The United States filed a Statement of Interest in opposition to the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in December 2010. The Court denied the parties' motions for Summary Judgment on January 20, 2011, and the case proceeded to trial in Feburary 2011. The parties await the Court's ruling.
Jonathon Paul Boyd, a 34-year-old with quadriplegia who is currently living in a nursing home but desires and is able to receive services in a more integrated setting, alleges that the State of Alabama violates Title II of the ADA by administering its Medicaid program in a manner that causes Mr. Boyd to be unnecessarily institutionalized in a nursing facility.
In October 2010, the United States filed a brief in support of Plaintiffs' challenge to the State's plan to eliminate services for individuals with mental illness without offering sufficient alternative support services that are necessary to prevent Plaintiffs' hospitalization and institutionalization.
The Court granted Plaintiffs' motion on October 7, 2010. The case is currently pending.
On October 19, 2010, the DOJ entered into a comprehensive Settlement Agreement with the State of Georgia and Georgia officials, resolving the United States' complaint alleging that individuals with mental illness and developmental disabilities confined in State hospitals were unnecessarily institutionalized and subjected to unconstitutional harm to their lives, health, and safety in violation of the ADA and the U.S. Constitution.
The agreement requires Georgia to expand community services so that individuals with mental illness and developmental disabilities can receive supports in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. Specifically, for individuals with developmental disabilities, the agreement provides that Georgia will cease all admissions to the State-operated institutions; transition all individuals to the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs by July 1, 2015; create more than 1100 home and community-based waivers to serve individuals in the community; serve those receiving waivers in their own home or their family's home consistent with the individual's informed choice; and provide family supports, mobile crisis teams, and crisis respite homes.
For individuals with mental illness, the agreement provides that Georgia will serve in the community 9,000 individuals with serious and persistent mental illness who are currently served in State Hospitals; frequently readmitted to State Hospitals; frequently seen in emergency rooms; chronically homeless and/or being released from jails or prisons. Services will be provided through a combination of 22 Assertive Community Treatment teams, 8 Community Support teams, 14 Intensive Case Management teams, 45 Case Management service providers, 6 Crisis Services Centers, 3 additional Crisis Stabilization Programs, community-based psychiatric beds, mobile crisis teams, crisis apartments, a crisis hotline, supported housing, supported employment, and peer support services. The agreement also provides for a State-wide quality management system for community services and names Elizabeth Jones as the Independent Reviewer to assess the State's compliance with the agreement.
Luis Cruz and Nigel de la Torre successfully sought a preliminary injunction enjoining the State of Florida from denying them the home and community-based services available under its Traumatic Brain Injury/Spinal Cord Injury Medicaid Waiver.
The United States had filed a Statement of Interest in support of Cruz and de la Torre's motion for preliminary injunctive relief. On April 19, 2011, the Court granted the parties' joint motion to dismiss with prejudice.
Luis Cruz and Nigel de la Torre continue to receive home and community-based services under the State's Traumatic Brain Injury/Spinal Cord Injury Medicaid Waiver.
Plaintiffs challenge the State's failure to fund appropriate Medicaid community services for individuals with spinal cord injury, which places Plaintiffs at risk of institutionalization in violation of Olmstead.
The United States moved to intervene in August 2010.
The case was voluntarily dismissed January 3, 2011.
Individuals with mental illness brought suit against the County of Sacramento for failing to provide adequate community-based services, which placed them at risk of institutionalization. In July 2010, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, requesting that the Court stop the County from moving forward with its plans to drastically change the mental health service system. The Court granted Plaintiffs' motion on July 27, 2010.
In July 2010, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, urging the Court to permit young adults to collectively challenge a State policy that places medically fragile individuals with disabilities at risk of institutionalization after turning 21.
The Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification on November 22, 2010. The case is currently pending.
The United States filed a Statement of Interest on June 25, 2010 to address the issue of access to institutions and records granted to Protection and Advocacy systems pursuant to the P&A acts. The United States argued that the P&A Act vests the P&As with broad access to people, facilities, and records to achieve the Acts' purpose of protecting vulnerable individuals from abuse and neglect.
Hundreds of persons with developmental disabilities residing in several large State-owned-and–operated institutions in New Jersey brought this suit, alleging that the State fails to provide them with services and supports in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs.
In May 2010, the parties filed cross-motions for Summary Judgment. The United States filed an Amicus Curiae Brief supporting the plaintiffs and arguing that unnecessary segregation of individuals with disabilities in institutions is a form of discrimination prohibited by the ADA. The United States also asserted that New Jersey is failing to serve individuals with disabilities in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs and that continued unjustified institutionalization violates their rights.
On September 24, 2010, the Court denied both parties' Summary Judgment motions and set the proceeding for trial. (2010 WL 3862536). The case is currently pending.
Michelle Haddad successfully sought a preliminary injunction enjoining the State of Florida from denying her the home and community-based services available under its Traumatic Brain Injury/Spinal Cord Injury Medicaid Waiver.
The United States had filed a Statement of Interest in Support of Haddad's Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief. On April 19, 2011, the Court granted the parties' joint motion to dismiss with prejudice.
Michelle Haddad continues to receive home and community-based services under the State's Traumatic Brain Injury/Spinal Cord Injury Medicaid Waiver.
The United States filed suit against the State of Arkansas and Arkansas officials on May 6, 2010, alleging that the defendants were violating the ADA by failing to provide services to individuals with developmental disabilities in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs and by failing to provide community service options for the 1400 people on waiting lists at risk of institutionalization.
On January 24, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed the complaint without prejudice on procedural grounds relating to pre-litigation notice to the State.
Individuals with developmental disabilities and mental illness challenged the State's proposed reductions in reimbursement rates for in-home services that will have the effect of eliminating providers that offer medically necessary services that enable individuals to successfully reside in the community and will place them at risk of institutionalization.
On February 16, 2010, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
The Court denied the Motion, but ordered the State to provide appropriate community based services during the pendency of the lawsuit.
In January 2010, the United States filed a Statement of Interest urging the Court to grant preliminary approval of the Plaintiffs' and Defendants' jointly submitted Consent Decree in a case regarding large, private facilities for individuals with developmental disabilities. Intervenors, primarily family members of residents, strongly opposed the agreement. The Court referred all the parties to settlement negotiations and the United States participated in those discussions. All parties, including the intervenors, reached a revised agreement that requires the State to move at least 3,000 individuals with developmental disabilities into community-based settings within the next six years. The Court approved the revised Settlement Agreement in June 2011.
In a case brought by two individuals with mental illness and developmental disabilities who faced institutionalization because of the State's decision to reduce their community-based services, the United States filed an Amicus Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction in December 2009, requesting that the Court stop the State from reducing the services.
The Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction on January 17, 2010. (679 F.Supp. 2d 635).
The Plaintiffs in this lawsuit challenge the State of Connecticut's reliance on privately-run, segregated nursing facilities to serve the needs of individuals with mental illness who would be more appropriately served in community-based settings.
The United States filed an Amicus Curiae Brief opposing the State's Motion to Dismiss.
The United States filed an Amicus Curiae Brief supporting the ARC of Virginia's challenge to the State of Virginia's plan to build a costly, institutional facility for individuals with intellectual disabilities, a plan that Plaintiff alleged would result in seventy-five individuals being moved to unnecessarily segregated facilities. The Court denied the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in December 2009.
Clayton Griffin—a member of the class in Lee v. Dudek and who is partially paralyzed—successfully sought a preliminary injunction requiring the State of Florida to provide him with community-based services through the State's Medicaid program, instead of requiring him to remain in a nursing home in order to receive needed services.
The State of Florida appealed the ruling to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States filed an Amicus Curiae Brief noting that ADA regulations are enforceable through a private lawsuit. The United States also noted that the ADA regulation stating that entities are not required to provide "personal devices and services" to individuals with disabilities does not exempt entities from complying with the integration regulation when they choose to operate a program that does provide personal services and devices to individuals with disabilities.
On March 7, 2008, the Division issued a CRIPA/ADA findings letter to the State of Nebraska that detailed systemic conditions that violated the constitutional and statutory rights of the residents of the Beatrice State Developmental Center ("BSDC"), the State's largest facility for persons with developmental disabilities. At the time, BSDC housed close to 350 residents. The parties then swiftly concluded negotiations on a judicially enforceable remedial agreement. On July 2, 2008, the Hon. Richard G. Kopf, United States District Court Judge for the District of Nebraska (Lincoln), signed the parties' proposed consent decree as an order of the court. The agreement provides for oversight by a court monitor. Our decree has a strong ADA/Olmstead focus that has prompted the State to greatly expand community resources and to place dozens of BSDC residents into more integrated community settings. The State has funded the creation of new community programs, including specialty residential and day programs to meet the needs of persons with difficult health care and/or behavioral concerns. The census at BSDC has been cut about in half so far, and there are tangible plans to place several dozen more individuals in the community in the near future. The Division has accompanied the Independent Expert on just about all team monitoring visits since the decree took effect.
In mid-June 2008, the Division executed a comprehensive Settlement Agreement with the City of San Francisco to address outstanding deficiencies at the LHH nursing home. LHH is owned and operated by the City through the San Francisco Department of Public Health, and is licensed as both a skilled nursing facility and an acute care hospital. At the time of our settlement, LHH was the largest publicly-operated, single-site nursing home in the United States with a capacity of over 1,200 skilled nursing beds. The Division issued CRIPA/ADA findings letters on May 6, 1998, April 1, 2003, and August 3, 2004, that collectively concluded, in part, that the City engages in a pattern or practice of unlawful conduct with respect to placement of qualified LHH residents in the most integrated setting pursuant to the ADA. The Settlement Agreement required the City to address our findings, in part, by developing and implementing appropriate services and supports for residents in integrated community settings. Because of our settlement, the City has reduced the census capacity of LHH by more than one-third and developed a rich network of community homes and programs that now serve hundreds of former LHH residents as well as an unquantifiable number of persons who likely would have been admitted to an institutional setting like LHH but for the newly-established community network. Community residences include scattered-site apartments and other integrated homes throughout the San Francisco metropolitan area that are supported by an effective community system of case management and other clinical professionals.
This ADA case involves all persons with developmental disabilities (“DD”) served in the Commonwealth’s system. Over the years, through a series of consent decrees, along with regular court oversight and involvement, the Division has been able to prompt the Commonwealth to close all six of its residential institutions and to create, from nothing, a community service system to meet the needs of hundreds of persons with DD in integrated community settings. In 2011, the Court entered as a Court order, a Joint Compliance Action plan that summarized prior Court orders and imposed additional requirements on the Commonwealth. On October 31, 2016, the Court issued an order that clarified that the group covered by existing orders in this case included all persons with DD in the system and was not limited to just those who at one time resided in a Commonwealth institution. In recent years, the Court has issued a series of orders to protect the budget of the Commonwealth’s DD program from drastic and arbitrary cuts during the decade-long fiscal crisis in Puerto Rico. These orders have prevented service interruption and termination for hundreds of vulnerable people in need of individualized DD services. The Division continues to work with the Commonwealth to improve its delivery of health care and behavioral services for people with complex conditions, as well as to increase the number of people working in integrated community settings.
For more information and current filings in this case, please visit the Special Litigation Section's website.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 794
 v. 
 v. 
 v.