|
 |
 |
|
Archived
News and Projects CLASS ACTION SUIT FILED
Story provided by Marty Omoto, Legislative Director CA Coalition of United Cerebral Palsy Associations.
A class action law suit was filed Friday, January 25, against the State of California and all 21 regional centers, demanding that Californians with developmental disabilities residing in state operated institutions, and large privately operated skilled nursing facilities, community care facilities and intermediate care facilities, have the right to live in the community.
Protection and Advocacy, Inc. filed the suit on behalf of Capitol People First, a self advocacy organization of people with developmental disabilities, along with 12 Californians who currently live in state operated developmental centers and who want to live in the community. Arc California, the oldest and largest parent organization representing people with developmental disabilities and their families, and California Alliance for Inclusive Communities (CAIC), a statewide parent and family advocacy organization, are the two other organizational plaintiffs. In addition, two California taxpayers have joined the suit, asserting that the State has illegally spent tax dollars by failing to provide people with developmental disabilities options to live in the community.
The defendants in the suit are the California Health and Human Services Agency, the Department of Developmental Services (DDS), the Department of Health Services (DHS), the Department of Finance and the directors of each department, including Agency Secretary Grantland Johnson. In addition, the suit names the 21 non-profit Regional Centers that contract with DDS to provide services to people with developmental disabilities as a defendant, though did NOT list any of the regional center directors by name.
The filing of the lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court, was announced in a packed press conference on Friday morning during the Community Imperative conference in Oakland. The two day conference, which began January 25, was attended by about 1,000 advocates for people with developmental disabilities, including consumers and family members from across the state and nation. The event was organized by CAIC and co-sponsored by several other national and statewide advocacy organizations.
A previous lawsuit filed in 1990, Coffelt v. DDS (settled in 1994), moved over 2,000 people with developmental disabilities out of the state's five remaining institutions. In that lawsuit, four regional centers - North Bay, East Bay, Golden Gate and San Andreas, were named, along with the Department of Finance. According to Ellen Goldblatt of Protection and Advocacy, Inc., and lead counsel on behalf of the plaintiffs, more people moved into state institutions than were moved out and that the state "has not moved forward to reverse the trend of unnecessary institutionalization".
Avery Russell, one of the individual plaintiffs who is a resident in Agnews Developmental Center in San Jose, said at the press conference that he fears for his safety at the state hospital and wants to Oregon to be closer to his family.
"I want to be on my own. I'd be happy to be on my own. I want to live close to my family" Russell said to a packed press conference on Friday.
Barbara Turner, former head of the organization that represented parents with children in state institutions, said she had had doubts due to California's fiscal problems whether the suit can improve community care, in comments made to the Oakland Tribune on Saturday. She also claimed that there is a lack of fiscal accountability in the community system and raised concerns about the safety of care in the community.
The other attorneys for the plaintiffs are law firm of McCucthen, Doyle, Brown and Enersen, based in East Palo Alto, and the law firm of Sharon Kinsey of Soquel. Ellen Goldblatt and Eric Gelber of Protection and Advocacy, Inc., are the lead counsels for the plaintiffs.
THE INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS The individual plaintiffs for the class action suit are: * Adolph Angulo, age 45 currently at Lanterman Developmental Center, in Pomona.
* Harry Asprey, 49 years, at Porterville Developmental Center in Porterville.
* Edson Cruz, 17 years old, at Fairview Developmental Center in Costa Mesa.
* David Kelty, 36 years old, resident of Casa Carmen (a 110 bed licensed community care facility)
* Kimberly McAnnelly, age 26, at Sonoma Developmental Center in Eldridge (in Sonoma County)
* Andre Mills, 17 years old, at Porterville Developmental Center.
* Alana Ridgeway, 46 years old, currently a resident of a large skilled nursing facility in the Orange County Regional Center area.
* Avery Russell, age 45, Agnews Developmental Center in San Jose.
* Melbert Schanzenbach, 78 years, at Sonoma Developmental Center.
* Joellen Ventura, 48 year old woman, currently a resident in a large intermediate care facility in Sacramento.
* Jimmy White, 60 year old man, at Sonoma Developmental Center.
* Shawn Woodward-Katz, 20 year old man, at Fairview Developmental Center.
In addition, two California taxpayers - Janice Lord-Walker of Oakland and a parent of a 19 year old with Down's Syndrome and Curtis Kitty Cone of Berkeley, a disability rights activist, joined the suit.
IMPACT TO PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
* No immediate direct impact, since suit was just filed.
* The suit is asking the court to rule that the following groups of people can be a part of the class, consisting of all Californians with developmental disabilities who are or who will be institutionalized, and those who are or will be at risk of being institutionalized in either public or private facilities, including but not limited to, the Developmental Centers, skilled nursing facilities, intermediate care facilities - developmental disabled (ICF-DDs), large congregate community care facilities (CCFs), psychiatric hospitals or children's shelters.
* As it stands, the suit eventually could have direct impact (beyond the state and regional centers), to providers who operate skilled nursing facilities, large community care facilities (16 or more people), intermediate care facilities - developmental disabled (16 or more people). That could mean that individuals living in those facilities could be moved into smaller community settings, depending on their individual program plan. It could also mean that individuals might not be referred to those facilities in the future.
* The suit could impact the approximately 3,700 people live currently in the seven state operated institutions (including Canyon Springs and Sierra Vista). More than 1,000 residents of these institutions, according to the suit, have a recommendation by their individual program plan (IPP) teams to move out, but to date, have not.
* The lawsuit could impact the approximately 1,000 people with developmental disabilities (including about 100 children) live skilled nursing facilities.
* Over 1,200 people currently reside in large intermediate care facilities - Developmentally Disabled (ICF-DDs) which house over 16 people could be impacted by the suit.
* Many hundreds of people with developmental disabilities reportedly live in community care facilities (CCFs) that house over 16 or more people could be impacted, if included in the class action.
* Over 400 people "at risk" each year due to lack of community services and crisis intervention (according to the suit) could be directly impacted.
* As it stands, the suit probably would not bring more into the system of community services and supports except for those providers (and other vendors) who are referred consumers because of the lawsuit. (Another lawsuit, Sanchez v. Johnson, filed in US Federal District Court last year, against the State by residents of developmental centers and organizational groups including United Cerebral Palsy, California Rehabilitation Association, Easter Seals, Autism Society of LA and others, seeks to increase dramatically funding for community services. That case is expected to go to trial in June).
BACKGROUND * The suit contends that thousands of Californians with developmental disabilities are "needlessly isolated and segregated" from mainstream society in large congregate public and private institutions.
* The plaintiffs claim that every year hundreds more people find themselves at risk of institutionalization due to the lack of appropriate community supports and crisis intervention.
* In addition, the suit contends that the current situation violates Federal and state laws, including the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act, which is the entitlement to services for people with developmental services in California. The suit says that the State Supreme Court decision in ARC California v. DDS (in 1984) is being violated by the State and the regional centers because thousands of people are being "unnecessarily institutionalized" because the State and the regional centers have "failed in their obligation under the Lanterman Act to develop and provide community-based alternatives."
* The suit also claims that the defendants are in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the 1999 US Supreme Court ruling in the Olmstead v. L.C. case.
WHAT THE SUIT IS DEMANDING The lawsuit seeks a court order requiring the State and the regional centers to do the following:
* Provide the plaintiffs with easily understood information, including where needed experiential information on community living options.
* Inform plaintiffs of community living alternatives to living in an institution and provide with reasonable promptness those services and supports needed to enable plaintiffs and class members to live in the most integrated appropriate setting in their homes and communities rather than in "segregated institutional facilities".
* Inform plaintiffs and class members of home and community based (HCB) Medicaid waivers as an alternative to institutional services.
* Comply with person-centered, assessment and individualized program planning provisions of the Lanterman Act, including conducting timely and comprehensive assessments of the services and supports needed by individual plaintiffs' and class members to which they are entitled and that would enable them to live in the least restrictive, most integrated community placement.
* Ensure that regional center service coordinators attend all Individual Program Plan (IPP) meetings of their clients who reside in institutions.
* Ensure that state and regional center professionals conducting assessments and/or on Individual Program Plan (IPP) planning teams are qualified and exercise professional judgment comporting with contemporary standards and practices.
* Require that the state and regional center professionals do not arbitrarily fail to recommend to plaintiffs and class members for movement to a community home due to the objections of their families or conservators.
* Ensure that IPPs are based on choice and need rather than availability of services and reflect the values of supporting the person with relationships, productive work, participation in community life, and personal decision-making.
* Develop, expand, and make available a sufficient array of integrated, stable, quality community living arrangements, including supported living services, adult and children's foster homes, and homes that can serve the needs of people of all ages and with all types and severity of developmental disabilities including, but not limited to, dual diagnoses, nursing, or medical needs, and behavioral challenges.
* Develop, expand, and make available the necessary ancillary services including medical, nursing and mental health care, integrated vocational and day programs, behavioral supports, assistive technology, medication management, and quality assurance.
* Develop, expand and provide community-based crisis services and intervention so people [with developmental disabilities] can avoid losing their community homes and sufficient emergency housing so that people who must leave their current living arrangement may remain in their home community while an alternative community home is located or developed.
* Develop an effective systemic resource development capability including a program to ensure the availability of appropriate community living services, appropriate medical, dental, psychiatric, therapeutic and behavioral support services, and appropriate community-integrated employment services and other day activities in community integrated settings.
* Provide promptly to each plaintiff and class member, appropriate quality community living arrangements as called for by assessments and/or person-centered individual program plans (IPP) and/or individual court orders, consistent with contemporary standards of practice until such time the class member is no longer in need of community services,
* Provide services to plaintiffs and class members in a manner which promotes their ability to live independent, productive and normal lives, and promotes their inclusion in communities.
* Offer plaintiffs and class members the full range of home and community-based waivers [under Medicaid - called Medi-Cal in California] including DD and NF waiver services, for which they are eligible, within a specifically defined reasonably prompt time period, including as necessary, applying for expansions or modifications to the current California Medi-Cal (Medicaid) home and community-based waiver
* Take all action necessary to apply for, allocate or otherwise obtain sufficient funding to provide plaintiffs and class members with adequate assessments and those services and supports needed to enable them to live in their homes and communities, rather than "unnecessarily segregated institutional facilities".
* Cease admitting Californians with developmental disabilities whose needs could be met in more integrated community settings to the developmental centers.
* Cease placement of Californians with developmental disabilities in other public and private institutions when their needs could be met in more integrated community settings.
* Develop an effective quality assurance system in the community to enhance the quality of life for plaintiffs and class members through the adoption of appropriate standards, performance measurement, incentives and sanctions that promote community inclusion, choice, family unity, relationships, health and well-being.
* Provide quality assurance for plaintiffs and class members community living arrangements focused on previously stated quality of life outcomes and capable of detecting and remedying problems in class members programs in systemic and coordinated fashion.
* Develop an effective management information system in which systems of reporting, oversight and communication of information are organized and operational - and which allows monitoring of resource development across the state.
* Make available a friend-advocate to each plaintiff and class member to assist each in securing the substantive and procedural protections mentioned previously.
NEXT STEPS
* Not much will happen in the next several weeks since the case has just been filed.
FOR MORE INFORMATION Read More Archived News Stories AB896 General Human Interest Litigation State Budget
CASH/PCR is a nonprofit public benefit corporation and is not organized for the private gain of any person. It is organized under the California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation law for public and charitable purposes. |
 |
|
 |