[blindlaw] New Olmstead settlement agreement from ADA.gov

[Ross Doerr]

For those of you who do DD and MI files, you may wish to take note of this
and keep a tab on it for future reference.
***
skip navigation  


Olmstead HomeAbout OlmsteadDOJ Olmstead LitigationWhat's NewPress, Speeches
& TestimonyFiling an Olmstead Complaint"[T]he isolation of persons with
disabilities can breed fear and stereotypes about persons with disabilities,
which in turn can generate additional discrimination that spills over into
other areas, such as employment, public accommodations, and transportation."

DOJ Amicus Brief 
for Olmstead v. L.C..
Participation by the United States in Olmstead Cases
U.S. Party in Litigation
U.S. v. Rhode Island and City of Providence (D.R.I. 2013)


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. 

Interim Settlement Agreement (Word) | (PDF)

Complaint (Word) | (PDF) 
Faces of Olmstead - Read one individual's story.

Lane v. Kitzhaber, 12-CV-00138, (D. OR 2012)


On May 22, 2013, the Court granted the United States’ March 27 Motion to
Intervene in a pending class action lawsuit against the State of Oregon. The
United States' accompanying Complaint in Intervention alleges violations of
Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act for
unnecessarily segregating individuals with intellectual and developmental
disabilities in sheltered workshops when they could be served in integrated
employment settings.   

Prior to requesting intervention the United States filed on April 20, 2012,
a Statement of Interest in Support of Plaintiffs Regarding Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss.  The United States argued that Title II and the
integration regulation apply to all services, programs, and activities of a
public entity, including segregated, non-residential employment settings
such as sheltered workshops.

On June 18, 2012, the United States filed a second Statement of Interest in
Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. In its Statement of
Interest, the United States urged the Court to uphold class certification
for a plaintiff class of thousands of individuals in, or referred to, Oregon
sheltered workshops.  

United States of America's Motion to Intervene (Word) | (PDF) - filed March
27, 2013

United States of America's Memorandum in Support of Its Motion to Intervene
(Word) | (PDF) - filed March 27, 2013

Complaint in Intervention of the United States of America (Word) | (PDF) -
filed March 27, 2013

Letter of Findings (Word) | (PDF) - filed June 29, 2012 

Statement of Interest of the United States in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification (Word) | (PDF) - filed June 18, 2012


Statement of Interest (Word) | (PDF) - filed April 20, 2012

Steward et. al. v. Perry et. al. 5:10-CV-1025 (W.D. TX 2010)


On September 20, 2012, the Court granted the United States' June 2011
request to intervene in a pending lawsuit against the State of Texas
alleging violations of Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act for unnecessarily segregating individuals with
developmental disabilities in nursing facilities.

Prior to requesting intervention, the United States filed a Statement of
Interest on May 17, 2011 opposing the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. While
awaiting permission to intervene, the United States filed a Supplemental
Statement of Interest on November 30, 2011 in opposition to the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, and on September 10,
2012, filed a Statement of Interest in Support of Plaintiffs' Amended Motion
for Class Certification. In its Statement of Interest in Support of
Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class Certification, the United States urged
the Court to uphold class certification for a plaintiff class of
approximately 4,500 adults with developmental disabilities who are currently
confined to nursing facilities and thousands more who are at risk of nursing
facility placement.

On November 12, 2012, the United States filed a Supplemental Brief in
Support of Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class Certification, arguing that
the court should certify a class of individuals with developmental
disabilities where the state has multiple policies that perpetuate
unnecessary confinement in nursing facilities and deny those individuals the
opportunity to receive services in the community. 

Supplemental Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class
Certification (Word) | (PDF) - filed November 12, 2012

Statement of Interest of the United States of America in Support of
Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class Certification (Word) | (PDF) - filed
September 10, 2012

United States Supplemental Statement of Interest in opposition to
Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (Word) |
(PDF) - filed November 30, 2011

United States' Reply in Support of Motion to Intervene in the Ongoing
Lawsuit (Word) | (PDF) - filed August 4, 2011

Partial Consent Motion by the United States of America to Intervene and
Memorandum in Support Thereof (Word) | (PDF) - filed June 22, 2011

Proposed U.S. Complaint in Intervention Alleging Violations of the ADA and
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Word) | (PDF) - filed as an exhibit
June 22, 2011

Statement of Interest of the United States Opposing the State's Motion to
Dismiss (Word) | (PDF) - filed May 17, 2011

U.S. v. Virginia - 3:12CV059 (E.D. VA 2012)
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. 

For more information about this case, visit the Special Litigation Section's
website.

December 6, 2012 report of the independent reviewer

Order Approving Consent Decree (HTML) | (PDF) - entered August 23, 2012

Settlement Agreement as Final Order (Word) | (PDF) - entered August 23, 2012


Settlement Agreement (Word) | (PDF) - filed January 26, 2012 

Settlement Agreement Fact Sheet (Word) | (PDF)

Complaint (Word) | (PDF) - filed January 26, 2012

U.S. v. North Carolina, No. 5:12-cv-557 (E.D.N.C. 2012)
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. 

Settlement Agreement (Word) | (PDF) - filed August 23, 2012

Settlement Agreement Fact Sheet (Word) | (PDF)

Complaint (Word) | (PDF) - filed August 23, 2012

Amanda D. v. Wood Hassan, 1:12-CV-53-LM (D. N.H. 2012) (formerly Lynn E. v.
Lynch)
The court recently granted the Justice Department's motion to intervene in
Amanda D. v. Wood Hassan, a recently-filed lawsuit alleging that the state
of New Hampshire fails to provide mental health services to people with
disabilities in community settings in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The suit
alleges that as a result of the state's failures, people with mental illness
who need state mental health services are forced to go to segregated
institutions like the New Hampshire Hospital in Concord, N.H., and the
Glencliff Home in Benton, N.H. 

For more information about this case, visit the Special Litigation Section's
website.

United States' Reply to Defendants' Opposition to and in Support of
Plaintiffs' Renewed motion for Class Certification (Word) | (PDF) filed
March 21, 2013

US Memorandum In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification (Word) | (PDF) - filed April 20, 2012

U.S. Motion to Intervene (Word) | (PDF) - filed March 27, 2011

U.S. Memo in Support of Motion to Intervene 
(Word) | (PDF) - filed March 27, 2011

U.S. Proposed Order on Intervention (Word) | (PDF) - filed March 27, 2011

U.S.Proposed Complaint (Word) | (PDF) - filed March 27, 2011

DOJ Findings Letter to New Hampshire (2011) (PDF) - filed April 7 , 2011

U.S. v. Delaware - 11-CV-591
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. 

For more information about this case, visit the Special Litigation Section's
website.

September 5, 2012 report of the independent reviewer

January 30, 2012 report of the independent reviewer

Settlement Agreement - filed July 6, 2011

Order Entering Settlement Agreement - filed July 18, 2011

Settlement Agreement Fact Sheet

Press Release

Letter of Findings - filed November 9, 2010

Disability Advocates, Inc. v. Paterson – 03-CV-3209 – (E.D. NY 2009) 
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 have
discriminated against thousands of people with mental illness by
administering the State's mental health service system in a manner that
segregates them in large, institutional adult homes and denies 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 on November 25,
2009, filed a brief supporting the remedial plan proposed by the Plaintiff.
On March 1, 2010, the District Court issued a remedial order adopting most
of the proposals of the Plaintiff and DOJ. The order required the State to
ensure that (a) within four years, all current and future adult home
residents with mental illness are afforded the opportunity to receive
services in a community-based housing program, if qualified, and (b) no
individual with mental illness who is qualified for the State's
community-based housing program is offered placement in an adult home
unless, after being fully informed, he or she denies the opportunity to
receive services in the community-based housing program.

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.  

Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Remedial Plan and in Opposition
to Defendants' Proposed Remedial Plan (Word) | (PDF) - filed November 24,
2009

U.S. Brief as Appellee (PDF) - filed October 6, 2010

U.S. v. Arkansas – 10-CV-327 – (E.D. AR 2010)

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.

U.S. Complaint Alleging Violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(PDF) - filed May 6, 2010

U.S. v. Arkansas – 4:09-CV-00033 – (E.D. AR 2009)

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.

U.S. Complaint Alleging Violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act,
Constitution, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Word)
(PDF) - filed January 16, 2009

U.S. Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (Word) | (PDF) -
filed July 1, 2010, denied July 30, 2010)

U.S. Post-Trial Brief (PDF) - filed February 10, 2011

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (PDF) - filed June 8, 2011

U.S. v. Georgia – 10-CV-249 – (N.D. GA 2010) 
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.

For more information about this case, visit the Special Litigation Section's
website.

September 20, 2012 report of the independent reviewer

October 5, 2011 report of the independent reviewer

U.S. v. Georgia Settlement Agreement Fact Sheet (Word) | (PDF) - October 19,
2010 

Settlement Agreement (Word) | (PDF) - filed October 19, 2010 

Order (Amending and Entering Settlement Agreement) (PDF) - filed October 29,
2010

Findings Letters Following DOJ Investigations
DOJ Findings Letter to Florida (September 2012)
The United States issued a Findings Letter in September 2012 concluding that
Florida is violating the ADA's integration mandate in its provision of
services and supports to children with medically complex and medically
fragile conditions. After a comprehensive investigation, the Department
found that the State of Florida plans, structures, and administers a system
of care that has led to the unnecessary institutionalization of children in
nursing facilities and places children currently residing in the community
at risk of unnecessary institutionalization. Florida has implemented
policies and procedures that limit access to medically necessary services
and supports that would enable children to transition home to
community-based settings. The Department recommended that the State
implement certain remedial measures, including the development of sufficient
supports to enable children with disabilities unnecessarily segregated, or
at risk of unnecessary segregation, in nursing facilities to receive
services and supports in integrated settings in the community. 

Letter of Findings (Word) | (PDF) - issued September 5, 2012 

DOJ Findings Letter to Oregon (2012)
The United States issued a Findings Letter in June 2012 concluding that
Oregon is violating the ADA's integration mandate in its provision of
employment and vocational services. After an extensive investigation, the
Department found that the State of Oregon plans, structures, and administers
its system of providing employment and vocational services to individuals
with intellectual and developmental disabilities in a manner that delivers
such services primarily in segregated sheltered workshops rather than in
integrated community employment settings, causing the unnecessary
segregation of individuals in sheltered workshops that are capable of, and
not opposed to, receiving employment services in the community. The
Department recommended that the State implement certain remedial measures,
including the development of sufficient supported employment services to
enable those individuals unnecessarily segregated, or at risk of unnecessary
segregation, in sheltered workshops to receive services in individual
integrated employment settings in the community. 

Letter of Findings (Word) | (PDF) - filed June 29, 2012

DOJ Findings Letter to Mississippi
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. After
an extensive investigation, the Department found the State of Mississippi
has failed to meet its obligations under the ADA by unnecessarily
institutionalizing persons with mental illness or DD in public and private
facilities and failing to ensure that they are offered a meaningful
opportunity to live in integrated community settings consistent with their
needs. The Department recommended that the State implement certain remedial
measures, including the development of adequate, safe community-based
services for people with developmental disabilities or mental illness who
are unnecessarily institutionalized, or at risk of unnecessary
institutionalization. DOJ seeks to work with the State to negotiate a
settlement to resolve the findings.

For more information about this case, visit the Special Litigation Section's
website.

Letter of Findings (Word) | (PDF) - filed December 22, 2011

DOJ Findings Letter to North Carolina
The United States issued a Findings Letter in July 2011 concluding that
North Carolina is violating the ADA's integration mandate in its provision
of mental health services. After an eight month investigation, the
Department found that the State's administration of its mental health system
causes the unnecessary institutionalization of individuals with mental
illness in segregated facilities known as adult care homes. The Department
recommended that the State implement certain remedial measures, including
the development of scattered site supported housing and the provision of
adequate, community-based support services for people with mental illness
who are unnecessarily institutionalized, or at risk of unnecessary
institutionalization, in adult care homes. DOJ is currently negotiating
towards settlement with North Carolina to resolve the findings.

Letter of Findings (Word) | (PDF) - filed July 28, 2011

DOJ Findings Letter to Virginia (2011) 
Finding that Virginia is in violation of the ADA integration mandate in the
operation of its developmental disabilities services. The letter concludes
that Virginia violates the ADA by unnecessarily institutionalizing more than
1000 individuals with developmental disabilities in large institutions and
by placing other individuals at risk of institutionalization, including over
3000 individuals on the "urgent waitlist" for community services. The letter
identifies a lack of sufficient community-based services, including waivers,
crisis services, housing, and supported employment as a primary cause of the
violations. It also cites a flawed and inadequate discharge planning process
at the State's large institutions. 

DOJ is currently negotiating toward settlement with Virginia to resolve the
findings.

Letter of Findings (Word) | (PDF) - filed February 10, 2011

DOJ Findings Letter to New Hampshire (2011) 
Finding that the State of New Hampshire fails to provide services to
individuals with mental illness in the most integrated setting appropriate
to their needs in violation of the ADA, which has led to the needless and
prolonged institutionalization of individuals with disabilities and has
placed individuals with disabilities at risk of unnecessary
institutionalization. The letter finds that community capacity in New
Hampshire has declined in recent years and that this has led to unnecessary
institutionalization, prolonged institutionalization. There is also a
greater likelihood that some people will end up in even less desirable
settings not designed to provide mental health care such as the State
corrections system and the county jails. The letter finds that acute/crisis
alternatives to institutional care have diminished dramatically in recent
years, and that there is a lack of safe, affordable, and stable community
housing for persons with mental illness which can lead to greater levels of
impairment, more difficulty in accessing needed services and supports, a
loss of stability, and a greater risk of hospitalization and/or
institutionalization. The letter highlighted that community alternatives
cost significantly less than institutional services.

The Department is currently negotiating toward settlement with New Hampshire
to resolve the findings.

Letter of Findings (PDF) - filed April 7, 2011

DOJ Findings Letter to Delaware (2010) - 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. The Letter
finds that the State's system results in prolonged institutionalization of
people who could be served in the community and leads to unnecessary
hospitalization and risk of institutionalization of those currently in the
community.

Letter of Findings (Word) | (PDF) - filed November 9, 2010

DOJ Findings Letter to Nebraska (2008) 
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.

Beatrice State Developmental Center in Beatrice, Nebraska Findings Letter
(PDF) - filed March 7, 2008

United States v. State of Nebraska, Beatrice State Developmental Center
Settlement Agreement (PDF) - filed July 2, 2008

Laguna Honda Hospital and Rehabilitation Center (LHH)
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. 

Laguna Honda Hospital (California) (PDF) - May 6, 1998

Laguna Honda Hospital and Rehabilitation Center (California) (PDF) - April
1, 2003

Laguna Honda Hospital and Rehabilitation Center in San Francisco, California
(PDF) - August 3, 2004

Settlement Agreement between the United States Department of Justice and
City and County of San Francisco Regarding the Laguna Honda Hospital and
Rehabilitation Center, California (PDF) - June 13, 2008

DOJ Findings Letter to Puerto Rico (1997) 
Several years ago, the Division issued two CRIPA/ADA findings letters
concluding that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico was violating the
constitutional and legal rights of several hundred persons with
developmental disabilities who had been living in one or more of the
Commonwealth's six residential institutions. Shortly thereafter, the
Division reached agreement with the Commonwealth that Puerto Rico would
develop and implement a series of measures to drastically transform the
nature of its service-delivery system for persons with developmental
disabilities. In recent years, the Division has been actively monitoring the
Commonwealth's compliance with three CRIPA/ADA consent decrees, as well as
several other court orders, all executed to protect the rights of persons
with disabilities. The most recent of the consent decrees has a primary
ADA/Olmstead focus and is called the "Community-Based Service Plan." It is a
comprehensive community plan that has effectively changed the Commonwealth's
service-delivery system from an institutional model to an entirely
community-based system. Through our efforts, we have been successful in
prompting the Commonwealth to close all six of its government-run
residential institutions and, in their place, to create a vast network of
small homes and other programs in integrated community settings all across
the island. The Division has also prompted the Commonwealth to create
competitive and supported employment and other meaningful opportunities for
many of the former-residents in integrated community settings. We conduct
regular onsite compliance visits of the community homes and programs in
conjunction with a court monitor, and we participate in regular status
hearings and conferences before the Hon. Gustavo A. Gelpi, United States
District Court Judge for the District of Puerto Rico. In recent years, at
our urging, the court has issued several orders to prevent proposed massive
cuts in personnel and to the budget of the Commonwealth's intellectual
disabilities program, thus ensuring continued services to the vulnerable
participants. The Division is also currently monitoring the adequacy of the
delivery of clinical and other professional services to the community
participants.

Letter of Findings (HTML) - filed December 11, 1997

Center for Integral Services Developmental Disabilities Facility Findings
Letter (HTML) - filed June 11, 1997

United States v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Complaint (HTML) - filed April
21, 1999

United States v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Interim Settlement Agreement
(PDF) - filed May 4, 1999;

see also: 

Supplemental Interim Settlement Agreement (PDF) - filed July 20, 2000

Community-Based Service Plan (PDF) - filed October 9, 2001

Transition Order (PDF) - filed December 10, 2008

Compliance Order (PDF) - filed August 17, 2009 

Amicus Briefs / Statements of Interest
ILADD v. DHS – 13-CV-01300 – (E.D. IL 2013) - 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.

For more information about this case, visit the Special Litigation Section's
website. 

Statement of Interest (Word) | (PDF) filed April 15, 2013

T.H. et al. v. Dudek et al., 0:12-cv-60460-WJZ (S.D. Fla. 2012) 
On April 10, 2013, the United States filed a Statement of Interest opposing
Florida officials' Motion to Dismiss, and in support of plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification.  The plaintiffs' complaint alleges that the State
of Florida unnecessarily institutionalizes Medicaid-eligible children who
are medically fragile in nursing facilities, or places them at risk of
institutionalization, by limiting access to medically necessary services in
the community, in violation of the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act, and the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment ("EPSDT")
provisions of the Medicaid Act.  The complaint also alleges that Florida has
violated the Pre-Admission Screening and Resident Review ("PASRR")
provisions of the Nursing Home Reform Amendments to the Medicaid Act by
failing to fully evaluate children before admitting them to nursing
facilities.  The United States previously filed a Statement of Interest
opposing a prior motion to dismiss in June 2012.


Statement of Interest (Word) | (PDF) filed April 10, 2013 

Statement of Interest (Word) | (PDF) filed June 28, 2012

Hunter v. Cook, 1:08-cv-02930-TWT (N.D. Ga. 2013) 

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.

Statement of Interest of the United States Word | (PDF) - filed March 14,
2013

Georgia Advocacy Office v. Shelp, 1:09-cv-2880-CAP
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. 

Statement of Interest (Word) | (PDF) - filed June 25, 2010

Katie A. v. Douglas– CV-02-05662 AHM (SHX) – (C.D. CA 2011) (Formerly Katie
A. v. Bonta)
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. 

Comments of the United States in Support of Final Approval of the Proposed
Settlement Agreement (Word) | (PDF) - filed November 18, 2011

Day et al. v. District of Columbia et al., 1:10-cv-02250-ESH (D.D.C. 2010)
The United States 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 disabilities in nursing facilities. 

Statement of Interest (Word) | (PDF) - filed October 3, 2011

Darling v. Douglas – 09-CV-3798 – (N.D. CA 2009) (Formerly Cota v.
Maxwell-Jolly)
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. 

Comments of the United States in Support of Final Approval of the Proposed
Settlement Agreement (Word) | (PDF) - filed January 10, 2012

Supplemental Statement of Interest in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for
Preliminary Injunction (Word) | (PDF) - filed October 31, 2011

U.S. Statement of Interest in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary
Injunction (Word) | (PDF) - filed July 12, 2011

John B. v. Emkes (formerly, John B. v. Goetz) – 3-98-CV-0168 – (M.D. TN
1998) 

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.

U.S. Statement of Interest in Opposition to the Defendant's Motion to Vacate
Consent Decree (Word) | (PDF) - filed February 18, 2011

ARC of Virginia, Inc. v. Kaine – 09-CV-686 – (E.D. VA 2009) 
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. 

U.S. Memorandum of Law as Amicus Curiae in Opposition to Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss (Word) | (PDF) - filed November 24, 2009

Benjamin v. Dept. Pub. Welfare (M.D. Pa.) 
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. 

For more information about this case, visit the Special Litigation Section's
website.

Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellees and
Urging Affirmance (Word) | (PDF) - filed April 5, 2012 

U.S. Statement in Support of the Settlement Agreement (PDF) - filed August
2, 2011 

U.S. Brief as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary
Judgment (PDF) - filed July 7, 2010

Cota v. Maxwell-Jolly - 10-15635 -- (9th Cir.)
In 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
stopped the State of California from reducing the maximum weekly number of
days of Adult Day Health Care (ADHC) services, which enable elderly
individuals and individuals with physical and mental disabilities to live in
the community and avoid hospitalization and institutionalization. (656
F.Supp. 2d 1161). The Court held that the State had failed to put in place
measures to ensure that recipients of ADHC impacted by the reductions would
not be placed at risk of institutionalization, in violation of the ADA. In
2010, the Court prevented the State from implementing more restrictive
eligibility criteria, reasoning that the State's plan to alter eligibility
criteria, without more action by the State to improve the process for
community placements, would again place recipients at risk of
institutionalization. (688 F. Supp. 2d 980)

The State appealed the Court's 2010 decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals, where the United States filed an Amicus Curiae Brief supporting the
plaintiffs' argument that the State's planned alterations to eligibility
criteria would place individuals with disabilities at risk of
institutionalization. That case is currently pending before the Ninth
Circuit.

Brief of the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Plaintiffs-Appellees
(PDF) - filed June 28, 2010

Disability Rights New Jersey, Inc. v. Velez – 05-CV-4723 – (D. NJ 2005) 
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.

U.S. Brief as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary
Judgment (PDF) - filed June 21, 2010

Boyd v. Mullins -- 2:10-CV-688 – (M.D. AL 2010) 


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. 

The United States filed a Statement of Interest supporting Mr. Boyd's motion
for preliminary injunctive relief, which the Court denied on November 12,
2010. (753 F. Supp. 2d 1163)

The case is ongoing.

U.S. Statement of Interest in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary
Injunction (Word) | (PDF) - filed October 12, 2010

Clinton L., et al. v. Cansler, et al. – 10-CV-00123 – (M.D. NC 2010) 
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. 

U.S. Statement of Interest in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary
Injunction (Word) | (PDF) - filed February 16, 2010

Connecticut Office of Protection and Advocacy v. State of Connecticut –
3:06-CV-179 – (D. CT 2006)

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 Court denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and granted in part
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on March 31, 2010. (706 F. Supp.
2d 266)

The case is ongoing.

U.S. Memorandum as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Word) | (PDF) - filed November 25, 2009

Cruz v. Dudek – 1:10-CV-23048 – (S.D. FL 2010) 


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. 

U.S. Statement of Interest in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary
Injunction (Word) | (PDF) - filed September 13, 2010

Haddad v. Arnold – 3:10-CV-414 – (M.D. FL 2010) 


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. 

U.S. Statement of Interest in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary
Injunction (Word) | (PDF) - filed May 24, 2010

Hampe v. Hamos – 10-CV-3121 – (N.D. IL 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. 

U.S. Statement of Interest in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification (Word) | (PDF) - filed July 16, 2010)

Hiltibran v. Levy – 10-CV-4185 – (W.D. MO 2010)
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. 

Court Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (Word) | (PDF)
– filed April 4, 2011

U.S. Statement of Interest in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary
Judgment (Word) | (PDF) – filed April 4, 2011

U.S. Statement of Interest in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary
Injunction (Word) | (PDF) - filed October 15, 2010

Jones v. Arnold – 09-CV-1170 – (M.D. FL 2010)
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. 

U.S. Motion to Intervene (Word) | (PDF) - filed September 10, 2010

Knipp v. Perdue – 10-CV-2850 – (N.D. GA 2010) 
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. 

U.S. Statement of Interest in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary
Injunction (Word) | (PDF) - filed October 6, 2010

Lee v. Dudek – 4:08-CV-26 – (N.D. FL 2008) 


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. 

U.S. Statement of Interest in connection with the Parties' Cross Motions for
Summary Judgment (Word) | (PDF) - filed December 20, 2010

Long v. Benson – 08-16261 – (11th Cir. 2010) (related to Lee v. Dudek) 


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.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's grant of Mr. Griffin's
request for preliminary injunctive relief. (383 F. App'x 930)

Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellee (PDF) -
filed April 2, 2009

Ligas v. Maram – 05-CV-04331 – (N.D. IL 2005) 
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. 

U.S. Statement of Interest in Support of the Parties' Proposed Consent
Decree (Word) | (PDF) - filed January 26, 2010

Marlo M. v. Cansler – 09-CV-535 – (E.D. N.C. 2009) 
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). 

U.S. Memorandum as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for
Preliminary Injunction (Word) | (PDF) - filed December 23, 2010

M.R. v. Drefyus – 10-CV-2052 – (W.D. WA 2011) 
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. 

Letter from DOJ AAG Perez and HHS OCR Director Rodriguez to Governor
Gregoire (Word) | (PDF) - October 22, 2012 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Order Granting Injunctive Relief as to Named
Plaintiffs | (PDF) - filed December 16, 2011 

U.S. Statement of Interest in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary
Injunction (Word) | (PDF) - filed January 26, 2011

Napper v. County of Sacramento – 10-CV-01119 – (E.D. CA 2010) 
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. 

U.S. Statement of Interest in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary
Injunction (Word) | (PDF) - filed July 19, 2010

Pitts v. Greenstein – 10-CV-635 – (M.D. LA 2010) 
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. 

U.S. Statement of Interest in Opposition to the Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment (Word) (PDF) - filed April 7, 2011

Order Denying Motion for Summary Judgment (Word) | (PDF) 

Troupe v. Barbour – 10-CV-00153 – (S.D. MS 2010) 
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 is pending. 

U.S. Statement of Interest in Opposition to the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss (Word) | (PDF) - filed April 8, 2011

Oster v. Lightbourne – 09-CV-4668 – (N.D. CA 2009) (Formerly Oster v.
Wagner) 
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. 
Statement of Interest (Word) | (PDF) - filed January 9, 2012

Brief of the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Plaintiffs-Appellees
(Word) | (PDF) - filed March 2, 2010

Williams v. Quinn – 05-CV-4673 – (N.D. IL 2005) 
On May 24, 2010, the Department filed comments in Williams v. Quinn,
supporting a Settlement Agreement that would provide hundreds of individuals
with mental illness the opportunity to move from institutions to
community-based settings. On September 29, 2010, the Court gave final
approval of the Settlement Agreement. (748 F. Supp.2d 892)

Comments by the United States in Support of Final Approval of the Parties'
Proposed Consent Decree (Word) | (PDF) - filed September 10, 2010


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
ADA.gov | Civil Rights Division


last updated June 13, 2013