Participation by the United States in Olmstead Cases
U.S. Party in Litigation
Steward et. al. v. Perry et. al. 5:10-CV-1025 (W.D. TX 2010)
The United States filed a request to intervene in a pending lawsuit on June 22, 2011 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. The United States is awaiting permission from the court to file its complaint in intervention.
Prior to that filing, 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.
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.
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
Lynn E. v. Lynch, 1:12-CV-53-LM (D. N.H. 2012)
The court recently granted the Justice Department’s motion to intervene in Lynn E. v. Lynch, 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.
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, 2011U.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
US Memorandum In Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion
for Class Certification (Word) | (PDF) - filed April 20, 2012
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.
Settlement Agreement - filed July 6, 2011
Order Entering Settlement Agreement - filed July 18, 2011
Settlement Agreement Fact Sheet
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.
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.
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
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 mental retardation 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
T.H. et al. v. Dudek et al., 0:12-cv-60460-WJZ (S.D. Fla. 2012)
On June 28, 2012, the United States filed a Statement of Interest opposing Florida officials’ Motion to Dismiss. 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.
Statement of Interest (Word) | (PDF) filed June 28, 2012
Lane v. Kitzhaber – 12-CV-00138 – (D. OR 2012)
On April 20, 2012, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Support of Plaintiffs Regarding Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiffs’ complaint challenges the unnecessary segregation of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities in sheltered workshops. 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 Statement of Interest of the United States of America 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.
Statement of Interest (Word) | (PDF) filed April 20, 2012
Statement of Interest of the United States in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (Word) | (PDF) filed June 18, 2012
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 negatively affect them and their ability to stay in the institutions. They also argue that the settlement agreement should not have been approved because it requires certain institutionalized individuals who can appropriately be served in a community placement, but are unable to express a preference regarding their placements, to move to community-based services. 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. The United States argued that the settlement agreement is fair and reasonable. The United States 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 lacks a guardian or involved family member to express a preference on his or her behalf, should be provided with community-based services. A date for oral argument before the Third Circuit has not yet been set.
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, 2010
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.
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
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