Case: Rolland v. Romney

3:98-cv-30208 | U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Filed Date: Oct. 29, 1998

Closed Date: March 31, 2010

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On October 29, 1998 seven developmentally disabled individuals living in private nursing homes and two advocacy organizations filed suit against Massachusetts and six state agencies in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. They alleged that the defendants were warehousing patients eligible for community based treatment in nursing care facilities in violation of Americans with Disabilities Act, the Medicaid Act, and the Nursing Home Reform Amendments. They sought …

On October 29, 1998 seven developmentally disabled individuals living in private nursing homes and two advocacy organizations filed suit against Massachusetts and six state agencies in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. They alleged that the defendants were warehousing patients eligible for community based treatment in nursing care facilities in violation of Americans with Disabilities Act, the Medicaid Act, and the Nursing Home Reform Amendments. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief.

On February 2, 1999 the district court (Magistrate Judge Kenneth P. Neiman) certified a class consisting of developmentally disabled individuals in Massachusetts who resided in nursing facilities or were or should have been screened for nursing facilities. On June 4, 1999 the district court (Magistrate Judge Neiman) denied the defendants' motion to dismiss.

The parties reached a settlement that the court (Magistrate Judge Neiman) approved on January 10, 2000. The agreement established a presumption in favor of community based treatment and required the defendants to evaluate class members who desired such care and place them in it when appropriate and possible. It further provided that the defendants would provide appropriate specialized services to class members as determined by PASARR screening. Finally it established required numbers of community based transfers and diversions from nursing care.

Disputes arose regarding the implementation of the settlement agreement and on March 27, 2001 the district court (Magistrate Judge Neiman) found that the defendants were non-compliant with the provisions of the agreement regarding specialized services and on May 3, 2002 the court ordered additional injunctive relief designed to increase the rate at which specialized services were provided. The defendants appealed but on January 28, 2003 the First Circuit Court of Appeals (Judges Selya, Coffin, and Bownes) affirmed the district court. Further relief was sought and granted several times until the defendants came into compliance in late 2003.

In 2006 a dispute arose over the defendants' compliance with the diversion portion of the settlement but on January 16, 2007 the district court (Magistrate Judge Neiman) ruled for the defendants. On April 10, 2007 the district court (Magistrate Judge Neiman) found that the defendants were again in non-compliance in regards to specialized services and ordered further injunctive relief and on August 2, 2007 issued an order modifying the active treatment standards.

The parties negotiated a settlement regarding the treatment standards the defendants had trouble meeting and agreed to reduce the burdens on the defendants to meet those standards so that they could focus more on placements in community care facilities. The court (Magistrate Judge Neiman) approved this modified settlement over objections by some class members on May 22, 2008. These objectors appealed, but on January 19, 2010 the First Circuit Court of Appeals (Judges Lynch, Selya, and Stahl) affirmed the district court. These objectors also sought to decertify the class, but this motion was denied by the court (Magistrate Judge Neiman) on August 19, 2008. Final judgment with regards to the objections to the revised settlement agreement was entered on November 20, 2009 and the case was terminated on March 31, 2010.

Summary Authors

Michael Perry (2/18/2011)

People


Judge(s)

Bownes, Hugh Henry (New Hampshire)

Coffin, Frank Morey (Maine)

Lynch, Sandra Lea (Massachusetts)

Neiman, Kenneth P. (Massachusetts)

Selya, Bruce Marshall (Rhode Island)

Stahl, Norman H. (Massachusetts)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Belin, Richard D. (Massachusetts)

Costanzo, Cathy E. (Massachusetts)

Engel, Matthew (Massachusetts)

Eshghi, Nima R (Massachusetts)

Judge(s)

Bownes, Hugh Henry (New Hampshire)

Coffin, Frank Morey (Maine)

Lynch, Sandra Lea (Massachusetts)

Neiman, Kenneth P. (Massachusetts)

Selya, Bruce Marshall (Rhode Island)

Stahl, Norman H. (Massachusetts)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Belin, Richard D. (Massachusetts)

Costanzo, Cathy E. (Massachusetts)

Engel, Matthew (Massachusetts)

Eshghi, Nima R (Massachusetts)

Fiotto, Anthony S. (Massachusetts)

Follett, Jeffrey S. (Massachusetts)

Gonnam, Michelle R. (Massachusetts)

Griffin, Christine M. (Massachusetts)

Hatrick, Kristi (Massachusetts)

Highsmith, Christiaan H. (Massachusetts)

Laski, Frank J. (Pennsylvania)

Schwartz, Steven J. (Massachusetts)

Sheehy, Stephen M. (Massachusetts)

Siebrecht, Stacie B (Massachusetts)

Wicker, Catherine H (Massachusetts)

York, Thomas B. (Pennsylvania)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Bodin, Kristi A (Massachusetts)

Gale, Rosemary (Massachusetts)

Guberman, David A (Massachusetts)

Porter, William W (Massachusetts)

Roney, Deirdre (Massachusetts)

Salinger, Kenneth (Massachusetts)

Sinkel, Ginny (Massachusetts)

Wechsler, Peter T. (Massachusetts)

Williams, H. Gregory (Massachusetts)

Yogman, Judith (Massachusetts)

Other Attorney(s)

Andelman, Ethan B. (California)

Breslauer, James E (Massachusetts)

De Wolf, Buckmaster (California)

Kassel, Phillip J (Massachusetts)

Manning, Daniel S. (Massachusetts)

Rae, J. Paterson (Massachusetts)

Reinstein, John (Massachusetts)

Rodgers, Allan G (Massachusetts)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

02-01697

Docket

U. S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Feb. 14, 2007

Feb. 14, 2007

Docket

08-01874

Docket

Rolland v. Patrick

U. S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Nov. 18, 2010

Nov. 18, 2010

Docket

3:98-cv-30208

Docket

Rolland v. Patrick

Jan. 13, 2011

Jan. 13, 2011

Docket
94

3:98-cv-30208

MEMORANDUM REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS and DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT

Rolland v. Cellucci

52 F.Supp.2d 231

June 4, 1999

June 4, 1999

Order/Opinion
136

3:98-cv-30208

MEMORANDUM WITH REGARD TO APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Rolland v. Cellucci

191 F.R.D. 3

Jan. 10, 2000

Jan. 10, 2000

Order/Opinion
212

3:98-cv-30208

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER WITH REGARD TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FURTHER RELIEF CONCERNING SPECIALIZED SERVICES

Rolland v. Cellucci

138 F.Supp.2d 110

March 27, 2001

March 27, 2001

Order/Opinion
323

3:98-cv-30208

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER WITH REGARD TO PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED MOTION FOR FURTHER RELIEF CONCERNING SPECIALIZED SERVICES

Rolland v. Cellucci

198 F.Supp.2d 25

May 3, 2002

May 3, 2002

Order/Opinion
333

3:98-cv-30208

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER WITH REGARD TO PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' ACTIVE TREATMENT POLICY AND CERTIFICATION REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 3, 2002, ORDER

Rolland v. Cellucci

Aug. 14, 2002

Aug. 14, 2002

Order/Opinion

02-01697

Opinion (Affirming the District Court)

U. S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

318 F.3d 42

Jan. 28, 2003

Jan. 28, 2003

Order/Opinion
389

3:98-cv-30208

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER WITH REGARD TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SHOW CAUSE AND FOR FURTHER INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

273 F.Supp.2d 140

July 23, 2003

July 23, 2003

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

Last updated Aug. 10, 2022, 3:04 a.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: Massachusetts

Case Type(s):

Public Benefits/Government Services

Special Collection(s):

Olmstead Cases

Key Dates

Filing Date: Oct. 29, 1998

Closing Date: March 31, 2010

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Seven developmentally disabled individuals living in private nursing homes and two advocacy organizations.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

NDRN/Protection & Advocacy Organizations

GLAD (GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders)

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

State of Massachusetts (Boston, Suffolk), State

Massachusetts Executive Office of Administration and Finance (Boston, Suffolk), State

Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services (Boston, Suffolk), State

Division of Medical Assistance (Boston, Suffolk), State

Department of Mental Retardation (Boston, Suffolk), State

Massachusetts Rehabilitation Commission (Boston, Suffolk), State

Department of Public Health (Boston, Suffolk), State

Case Details

Causes of Action:

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

Medicaid, 42 U.S.C §1396 (Title XIX of the Social Security Act)

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Issues

Benefit Source:

Medicaid