Case: State of Connecticut Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons With Disabilities v. Connecticut

3:06-cv-00179 | U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut

Filed Date: Feb. 6, 2006

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On February 6, 2006, the State of Connecticut Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons With Disabilities (an independent State agency charged with advocating for persons with disabilities), along with several persons with mental disabilities residing in nursing facilities, filed this lawsuit against the State of Connecticut, its Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, its Department of Public Health, and its Department of Social Services in the United States District Court for …

On February 6, 2006, the State of Connecticut Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons With Disabilities (an independent State agency charged with advocating for persons with disabilities), along with several persons with mental disabilities residing in nursing facilities, filed this lawsuit against the State of Connecticut, its Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, its Department of Public Health, and its Department of Social Services in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. Bringing their claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendants were violating these two acts by warehousing and segregating mentally ill patients in three nursing facilities that were either locked or severely restricted. The plaintiffs alleged these patients desired community-based treatment instead.

On March 31, 2010, the district court (Judge Alvin W. Thompson) denied the defendants' motions to dismiss and certified the case as a class action. The class consisted of persons with mental illness who desired to and were capable of receiving community-based treatment and were institutionalized in Chelsea Place Care Center, Bidwell Care Center, or West Rock Health Care Center or were at risk of entry into these facilities. 706 F. Supp. 2d 266.

Discovery proceeded throughout the rest of 2010 and into 2011. In April 2011, Judge Thompson granted the parties' joint motion to stay the case so that they could try to negotiate a settlement. For the next three years, the parties negotiated.

On June 17, 2014, the parties reached a settlement agreement, which was approved by Judge Thompson on July 2.

The settlement agreement required the State to ensure that all class members who were eligible for and desired community-based services in a community-based setting were afforded those services. The State was also required to explain the benefits of community-based services and settings to all class members. Moreover, even for those class members who chose to remain in the nursing homes (rather than take advantage of a community-based setting), the State would continue to discuss and recommend community-based settings with them. The parties also agreed to the appointment of a remedial expert to ensure the State's compliance with the settlement agreement. The court was to retain jurisdiction over the case for four years to ensure compliance.

The State also agreed to pay $1.3 million in attorneys' fees to the plaintiffs.

Starting in 2014, the appointed Remedial Expert filed quarterly status reports to the district court outlining the State's progress toward compliance with the settlement agreement.

The court's jurisdiction was scheduled to end in July 2018. However, in January 2017, new class members, not subject to protections of the original settlement agreement, were identified. While defendants fully implemented and accomplished each benchmark within the timelines specified and were in compliance with the Settlement Agreement as to all other Class Members, the newly identified class members did not directly receive the specific protections of the settlement agreement. Thus the parties agreed to extend the jurisdiction with regards to these newly discovered class members only, for periods of six to eighteen months specific to the new class members, so that the defendants could give them the benefits of the settlement agreement. Quarterly reports were to continue through the extended period for the new class members. The court approved these provisions on June 25, 2018.

The original portions of the Settlement Agreement terminated pursuant to their terms on July 2, 2018. As of this update, the most recent status report was entered on April 22, 2019. The case is ongoing.

Summary Authors

Michael Perry (1/25/2011)

Andrew Junker (10/22/2014)

Lauren Latterell Powell (10/21/2017)

Michael Beech (8/3/2020)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4880754/parties/state-of-ct-ofc-of-protection-advocacy-for-persons-with-disabilities-v/


Judge(s)
Attorney for Plaintiff

Alisberg, Nancy B. (Connecticut)

Allen, Michael Gerhart (District of Columbia)

Arnett, Jennifer (New York)

Bossing, Lewis (District of Columbia)

Attorney for Defendant

Barber, Hugh (Connecticut)

Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

3:06-cv-00179

Docket (PACER)

Feb. 21, 2019

Feb. 21, 2019

Docket
1

3:06-cv-00179

Complaint

Feb. 6, 2006

Feb. 6, 2006

Complaint
123

3:06-cv-00179

First Amended Complaint

Sept. 9, 2008

Sept. 9, 2008

Complaint
174

3:06-cv-00179

Order and Opinion [Denying defendants' motions to dismiss and granting plaintiffs' motion for class certification]

March 31, 2010

March 31, 2010

Order/Opinion

706 F.Supp.2d 706

188

3:06-cv-00179

ORDER RE MOTION TO AMEND

State of CT Ofc of Protection & Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities v. Connecticut

June 25, 2010

June 25, 2010

Order/Opinion
303-11

3:06-cv-00179

Settlement Agreement

State of Ct. Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities v. State of Connecticut

June 17, 2014

June 17, 2014

Settlement Agreement
310

3:06-cv-00179

Order Granting Class Settlement

July 2, 2014

July 2, 2014

Order/Opinion
361

3:06-cv-00179

Consent Order Modifying Settlement Agreement

June 25, 2018

June 25, 2018

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4880754/state-of-ct-ofc-of-protection-advocacy-for-persons-with-disabilities-v/

Last updated April 1, 2024, 3:05 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
100

ORDER denying plaintiff's 81 Motion to Compel and 84 Motion to Compel without prejudice to refiling after a ruling on the pending motions to dismiss. See attached ruling. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 7/3/07. (Turner, M.)

July 3, 2007

July 3, 2007

RECAP
174

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 129 Motion to Certify Class; denying 140 Motion to Dismiss; denying 141 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Alvin W. Thompson on 03/31/2010. (Jean-Louis, C)

March 31, 2010

March 31, 2010

RECAP
321

Status Report

July 28, 2015

July 28, 2015

PACER

Order

Aug. 13, 2015

Aug. 13, 2015

PACER
323

Status Report

Nov. 12, 2015

Nov. 12, 2015

PACER

Order

Nov. 24, 2015

Nov. 24, 2015

PACER
325

Status Report

Jan. 27, 2016

Jan. 27, 2016

PACER

Order

Feb. 18, 2016

Feb. 18, 2016

PACER
327

Status Report

May 9, 2016

May 9, 2016

PACER

Order

June 22, 2016

June 22, 2016

PACER
329

Status Report

Aug. 12, 2016

Aug. 12, 2016

PACER
330

Status Report

Oct. 28, 2016

Oct. 28, 2016

PACER

Order

Nov. 30, 2016

Nov. 30, 2016

PACER
333

Status Report

Jan. 4, 2017

Jan. 4, 2017

PACER

Order

Jan. 20, 2017

Jan. 20, 2017

PACER
335

Status Report

April 3, 2017

April 3, 2017

PACER

Order

April 25, 2017

April 25, 2017

PACER
337

Status Report

Aug. 2, 2017

Aug. 2, 2017

PACER
338

Substitute Party

Aug. 8, 2017

Aug. 8, 2017

PACER
339

Substitute Party

Aug. 8, 2017

Aug. 8, 2017

PACER

Order on Motion to Substitute Party

Aug. 11, 2017

Aug. 11, 2017

PACER
342

Status Report

Sept. 1, 2017

Sept. 1, 2017

PACER

Order

Sept. 1, 2017

Sept. 1, 2017

PACER

Calendar Entry

Sept. 20, 2017

Sept. 20, 2017

PACER
345

Response

Oct. 10, 2017

Oct. 10, 2017

PACER

Order

Oct. 11, 2017

Oct. 11, 2017

PACER

Status Conference

Oct. 11, 2017

Oct. 11, 2017

PACER
348

Status Report

Oct. 18, 2017

Oct. 18, 2017

PACER

Order

Oct. 30, 2017

Oct. 30, 2017

PACER
350

Status Report

Jan. 30, 2018

Jan. 30, 2018

PACER

Order

Feb. 2, 2018

Feb. 2, 2018

PACER
352

Status Report

April 10, 2018

April 10, 2018

PACER
354

Notice of Appearance

May 10, 2018

May 10, 2018

PACER
355

Withdraw as Attorney

May 10, 2018

May 10, 2018

PACER
357

Status Report

May 14, 2018

May 14, 2018

PACER
359

Settlement

1 Proposed Consent Order Modifying Settlement Agreement

View on PACER

2 Exhibit A to Proposed Consent Order Modifying Settlement Agreement

View on PACER

June 12, 2018

June 12, 2018

PACER
360

Status Report

June 18, 2018

June 18, 2018

PACER
361

Order on Motion for Settlement

June 25, 2018

June 25, 2018

PACER
363

Notice of Appearance

June 26, 2018

June 26, 2018

PACER
364

Withdraw as Attorney

June 27, 2018

June 27, 2018

PACER
370

Notice (Other)

April 19, 2019

April 19, 2019

PACER

Order

April 22, 2019

April 22, 2019

PACER
372

Status Report

Oct. 16, 2019

Oct. 16, 2019

PACER

Order

Oct. 28, 2019

Oct. 28, 2019

PACER
374

Settlement Agreement

1 Exhibit A

View on PACER

Jan. 23, 2020

Jan. 23, 2020

PACER

Order

Jan. 24, 2020

Jan. 24, 2020

PACER
376

Status Report

Jan. 27, 2020

Jan. 27, 2020

PACER

Order

Jan. 28, 2020

Jan. 28, 2020

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Connecticut

Case Type(s):

Public Benefits/Government Services

Special Collection(s):

Olmstead Cases

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: Feb. 6, 2006

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

State Agency suing on behalf of a class of persons with mental illnesses who are housed in various nursing homes or in danger of being housed in them rather than being provided with community based treatment.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

State Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

NDRN/Protection & Advocacy Organizations

Bazelon Center

Relman, Dane & Colfax

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

State of Connecticut Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (Hartford, Hartford), State

State of Connecticut Department of Public Health (Hartford, Hartford), State

State of Connecticut (Hartford, Hartford), State

State of Connecticut Department of Social Services (Hartford, Hartford), State

Defendant Type(s):

Hospital/Health Department

Facility Type(s):

Government-run

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.

Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Attorneys fees

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Content of Injunction:

Reasonable Accommodation

Discrimination Prohibition

Comply with advertising/recruiting requirements

Reporting

Monitoring

Required disclosure

Amount Defendant Pays: 1.3 million

Order Duration: 2014 - None

Issues

General/Misc.:

Classification / placement

Deinstitutionalization/decarceration

Government services

Individualized planning

Public benefits (includes, e.g., in-state tuition, govt. jobs)

Recreation / Exercise

Rehabilitation

Benefits (Source):

Medicaid

Disability and Disability Rights:

disability, unspecified

Integrated setting

Intellectual/developmental disability, unspecified

Least restrictive environment

Mental Illness, Unspecified

Mental impairment

P&A Associational Standing

Reasonable Accommodations

Discrimination Basis:

Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)

Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:

Confinement/isolation

Habilitation (training/treatment)

Placement in mental health facilities

Medical/Mental Health Care:

Intellectual disability/mental illness dual diagnosis

Medicare eligibility determination

Mental health care, general

Mental health care, unspecified