Opinion ID: 789693
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Remaining Olmstead Prongs

Text: 49 The parties vigorously dispute whether the State's treatment professionals have determined that community placement is appropriate. Olmstead, 527 U.S. at 587, 119 S.Ct. 2176. The June 2000 report by South Mountain treatment professionals — concluding that 80% of South Mountain residents could function in the community now if the necessary community support services were in place and operational and that none of SMRC's residents were precluded from leaving due to serious medical problems that cannot be met in the community — seemingly leave[s] no doubt that a rational jury would find that such a determination was made. Glanzman v. Metro. Mgmt. Corp., 391 F.3d 506, 514 (3d Cir.2004). 50 The evidence presented on this issue was voluminous, however, and because this is a factual issue, subject to substantial eviden[tiary] review, we conclude that the analysis should be performed by the District Court in the first instance. MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. Bell Atlantic, 271 F.3d 491, 522 (3d Cir.2001). We thus leave the prong one analysis for the District Court on remand. Cf. Townsend, 328 F.3d at 520 (remanding an ADA integration claim for consideration of an Olmstead prong not reached by the trial court). 51 We similarly conclude that the District Court should first consider on remand whether the transfer from institutional care to a less restrictive setting is ... opposed by the affected individual[s]. Olmstead, 527 U.S. at 587, 119 S.Ct. 2176. 52