Case: Rolland v. Romney

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.