Case: Jensen v. Minnesota Department of Human Services

0:09-cv-01775 | U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota

Filed Date: July 10, 2009

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On July 10, 2009, mental health patients at Minnesota Extended Treatment Options, a state facility, filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and Minnesota state law against the Minnesota Department of Human Services in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, sought injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages. They alleged that Minnesota Extended Treatment Options frequently subjected patients with developmental disabilities to the i…

On July 10, 2009, mental health patients at Minnesota Extended Treatment Options, a state facility, filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and Minnesota state law against the Minnesota Department of Human Services in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, sought injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages. They alleged that Minnesota Extended Treatment Options frequently subjected patients with developmental disabilities to the improper and inhumane use of seclusion and mechanical restraints in violation of their Fourteenth and Eighth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and §504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

The plaintiffs also claimed state law violations under the Constitution of the State of Minnesota, the Minnesota Human Rights Act, and under Minnesota statutes for negligence, false imprisonment, battery, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and fraud. The plaintiffs' claim for declaratory relief alleged that the Minnesota state statutes referred to as "Rule 40" (Minn. Stat. § 245.825 and Minn. R. 9525.2700 - .2810), which govern the use of seclusion and mechanical restraints in licensed facilities serving persons with developmental disabilities, violate the Minnesota and United States Constitution.

Specifically, patients were restrained with metal handcuffs, leg irons, shackles and/or nylon straps after committing insignificant conduct violations such as spitting, laughing, hand-washing, or touching a pizza box. The Minnesota State Ombudsman for Mental Health and Development Disabilities reviewed the Minnesota Extended Treatment Options facility in 2008 and released a report titled "Just Plain Wrong". The Ombudsman found that METO staff excessively used restraints and law enforcement-style devices and that 63% of METO residents at the time of the review had been restrained. One resident was restrained 299 times in 2006 and 230 times in 2007.

On March 8, 2010, the District Court (Judge Donovan W. Frank) ordered the Defendants to submit a draft settlement agreement to the Plaintiffs by April 2, 2010. On July 19, 2010, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the state law claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. That same day the Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and a motion to certify the class.

On September 14, 2010, the parties reached a $3 million settlement agreement following two days of mediation. In the settlement, the parties agreed to work together to develop appropriate policies and procedures for implementation at METO and the Minnesota Department of Human Services. Additionally, the parties agreed to form a committee comprised of stakeholders within the developmental disabilities community. The committee's responsibilities included reviewing the Minnesota Department of Health Services rule (Rule 40), which governs and protects people with developmental disabilities. The committee would also modernize Rule 40 to reflect current best practices, including the use of positive and social behavioral supports, the development of placement plans consistent with the principles of the "most integrated setting" and "person-centered planning", and development of an "Olmstead Plan" consistent with the 1999 U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 582 (1999).

On Dec. 5, 2011, Judge Frank approved the class settlement agreement. 2011 WL 6178845. On July 17, 2012, the Court appointed an independent advisor and monitor to oversee implementation of the Settlement Agreement and to provide status reports to the Court. The terms indicated that the court would retain jurisdiction for two years after the Agreement was approved of, or as the court deemed just and equitable. It contained an option for the court to extend its jurisdiction upon a motion by plaintiffs if defendants were in substantial non-compliance with certain terms of the Agreement regarding restraints.

On Dec. 11, 2013, the Court accepted the monitor's suggestion to modify an aspect of the settlement agreement governing the emergency use of manual restraints and "Velcro soft cuffs and fabric ankle straps." The monitor suggested eliminating the soft cuffs and ankle-strap options and made other changes, including special staff training on the revised policy.

On April 30, 2014, in response to another monitor update, Judge Frank issued an order expressing disappointment in the fact that "more than two years after the approval of the settlement agreement, for some [state] employees, safety is equated with a show of force, power and control in a legacy of the old institutional way and not the direction [DHS is] headed." (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court strongly encouraged the state to redouble its efforts at compliance with the settlement agreement.

On Sept. 18, 2014, the Court declined to adopt the state's proposed Olmstead Plan and ordered that they submit a revised plan. The state then submitted another revised Olmstead Plan, for which Judge Frank gave his provisional approval on January 9, 2015. However, the court's order outlined a number deficiencies in the proposed Plan, particularly with respect to the state's plans for reaching its employment, housing, and healthcare goals. To address these deficiencies, Judge Frank ordered the state to include more specificity and concrete action steps in its plan.

After the State submitted a revised plan in March of 2015, on April 14, the Independent Monitor submitted a special report to the court detailing his concerns about potential misrepresentations and inaccurate or unverified reporting on behalf of the State with respect to its progress. For instance, an April 2014 report filed by the State indicated that "mobile support teams" were actively supporting class members in their homes. However, when the Monitor asked DHS about the activities of these teams, he was told the teams did not exist. The State disputed knowingly or intentionally filing inaccurate information. Judge Frank declined to impose sanctions or hold the state in contempt of court, but did reject the state's revised Olmstead Plan on May 6, 2015. 2015 WL 2100942. He again ordered the state to submit a revised plan, this time by July 10.

On May 27, 2015, DHS filed a motion for relief from judgment, asking the court to exempt the State from the provision of the Settlement Agreement that prohibited "transfers or placements of persons committed solely as a person with a developmental disability to the Minnesota Security Hospital." The State apparently did so in response to its decision to move a 16-year-old with developmental disabilities to the Minnesota Security Hospital. On June 24, Judge Frank denied the motion and ordered the defendants to create a discharge plan for the juvenile who had been moved to the hospital. (This individual was moved to a community placement, with approval of the court, in July of 2016.)

On August 10, 2015, the State submitted another revised Olmstead Plan. The State's letter to the court indicates that it focused not only on what actions state parties would take to implement the Plan, but also on creating concrete and measurable goals. Although plaintiffs still disapproved of certain aspects of the proposed Olmstead Plan, the court approved it on September 29, 2015. Judge Frank found that three key changes influenced his decision to approve of the Plan: (1) the addition of concrete

baseline data and specific timelines to establish measurable goals; (2) improvements to each goal that make the Olmstead Plan not only measurable, but strategically tailored to make a significant impact in the lives of individuals with disabilities across the state; and (3) added commitments to make the Olmstead Plan an evolving document that will continue to respond to the changing needs of individuals in the state over time. The plan included over 100 Evaluation Criteria (EC) through which the State could measure its progress. At this time, two areas - Assistive Technology and Preventing Abuse and Neglect - remained "under development." The court gave defendants another chance to develop these topic areas while it began to implement the overall Plan.

On November 20, 2015, Judge Frank awarded $50,000 in additional attorneys' fees to Class Counsel.

On February 22, 2016, the court issued two orders with respect to the State's reporting requirements. One required that DHS submit quarterly and annual reports regarding implementation of the newly-approved Olmstead Plan. That order also extended the court's jurisdiction through December of 2019. The second order required DHS to submit semi-annual and annual Comprehensive Plan of Action (CPA) reports regarding implementation of the Settlement Agreement. The orders temporarily stayed the reporting duties of the Court Monitor.

On May 31, 2016, DHS submitted a revised Olmstead Plan, which incorporated developed plans for the areas of Assistive Technology and Preventing Abuse and Neglect.

After DHS filed its next round of reports in August, the court ordered the Monitor to write an independent Compliance Report. The Compliance Report, dated November 29, 2016, indicated that defendants had improved in the thoroughness of their self-reporting. However, it noted several areas for improvement in reporting, including verification of outcomes related to quality-of-life, looking outside the scope of documents for sources of compliance information, and including information verifying how "best efforts" were made where that standard was required. Substantively, the Monitor noted that lack of community support services continued to hamper outcomes related to successful transitions into the community. It also noted areas of significant progress, including the cessation of the use of restraints in some facilities and the development of extensive community training.

The annual CPA for the year 2016 was filed under seal on March 31, 2017, so its contents are not accessible. However, a quarterly report filed on February 28 indicated that the State had met certain annual goals, including increasing the number of individuals in integrated employment settings, increasing the number of students receiving education in the most integrated setting, and increasing the number of accessible pedestrian signals. It also highlighted areas for improvement, including increasing the number of students entering post-secondary education and decreasing the number of students experiencing the use of emergency restrictive procedures.

In April of 2017, defendants objected - but did not formally make a motion - to the court's continuing jurisdiction, arguing that it could only extend its jurisdiction for one year beyond the original two-years that the court indicated it would retain jurisdiction after the Settlement Agreement was approved in 2011. Judge Frank denied defendants' objection on the basis that, while somewhat ambiguous, the Settlement Agreement's assertion that the court could retain jurisdiction as it "deem[ed] just and equitable" meant that continuing jurisdiction to ensure proper implementation of the Agreement was appropriate, especially in light of defendants' past non-compliance.

Defendants submitted an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit regarding this decision on July 26, 2017. On October 20, they filed a motion asking the district court to stay their obligations under the Settlement Agreement while their appeal was pending. The district court denied the motion to stay based on the pending appeal on February 1, 2018, saying that the defendants did not sufficiently persuade the court that they would win on the merits and that harm would be irreparable if it was not granted.

An Eighth Circuit panel of Circuit Judges Roger L. Wollman, Morris S. Arnold, and Jane L. Kelly confirmed the district court's suspicion and stated that the district court was correct to exercise jurisdiction over the continuing settlement agreement disputes on July 26, 2018. 897 F.3d 908. The panel wrote that while neither party's interpretation of the agreement made perfect sense, the fact that both sides continued to file motions past the settlement's expiration date as if the district court had jurisdiction was enough extrinsic evidence to determine that the court had jurisdiction over the matter.

Reports and monitoring continued into 2019; the court was set to lose jurisdiction over the settlement agreement at the end of the year. However, in response to a plaintiff's motion, the district court extended jurisdiction over the matter through September 15, 2020 on June 17, 2019. 2019 WL 2499595. Judge Frank wrote that enough questions existed surrounding the use of restraints in certain care homes and staff training at covered facilities that further jurisdiction for monitoring the implementation of the settlement agreement was warranted. The defendants filed a motion to amend the order to remove jurisdiction from the court, but the district court denied the motion on August 28, 2019, referring to reasons discussed in the earlier motion. 2019 WL 4059852.

Given the outstanding questions surrounding the use of restraints at covered facilities, the district court directed the parties to determine an external review of the Forensic Mental Health Program and Anoka Metro Regional Treatment Center. The parties were unable to reach an agreement, and on February 13, 2020, Judge Frank issued an order setting an external reviewer of the facilities.

The defendants filed an appeal of this decision on February 20, 2020, arguing that the district court did not have the jurisdiction to name an external reviewer under the terms of the settlement agreement. They also filed a motion to stay the case pending the outcome of the appeal with the district court. The district court denied this motion on March 9, 2020, saying that success on the merits was unlikely and harm would not be irreparable. 2020 WL 1130671. The appellate court granted the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the appeal on April 7, 2020, and suggested that a full opinion was coming later; none has yet been filed.

The case is ongoing, though discovery and reporting has slowed given the COVID-19 pandemic.

Summary Authors

Joe Reiter (3/28/2011)

Andrew Junker (12/4/2014)

Lauren Latterell Powell (1/5/2018)

Ellen Aldin (6/8/2020)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5008475/parties/jensen-v-minnesota-department-of-human-services/


Judge(s)

Arnold, Morris Sheppard (Arkansas)

Frank, Donovan W. (Minnesota)

Kelly, Jane Louise (Iowa)

Noel, Franklin L. (Minnesota)

Thorson, Becky R. (Minnesota)

Wollman, Roger Leland (South Dakota)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Azman, Mark R (Minnesota)

Mullin, Margaret Ann (Minnesota)

O'Meara, Shamus P (Minnesota)

Santos, Margaret Ann (Minnesota)

Judge(s)

Arnold, Morris Sheppard (Arkansas)

Frank, Donovan W. (Minnesota)

Kelly, Jane Louise (Iowa)

Noel, Franklin L. (Minnesota)

Thorson, Becky R. (Minnesota)

Wollman, Roger Leland (South Dakota)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Azman, Mark R (Minnesota)

Mullin, Margaret Ann (Minnesota)

O'Meara, Shamus P (Minnesota)

Santos, Margaret Ann (Minnesota)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Alpert, Steven H (Minnesota)

Brennaman, Nathan A (Minnesota)

Devine, Marsha Eldot (Minnesota)

Ikeda, Scott H (Minnesota)

Kohnstamm, Kenneth (Minnesota)

Leonard, Michael N. (Minnesota)

Noss, Anthony R. (Minnesota)

Orbovich, Samuel D (Minnesota)

Stafford, Christopher A (Minnesota)

Swanson, Lori (Minnesota)

Winter, Aaron (Minnesota)

Other Attorney(s)

Procaccini, Karl C. (Minnesota)

Swenson, Katherine M. (Minnesota)

Ursu, John W. (Minnesota)

Expert/Monitor/Master

Ferleger, David (Pennsylvania)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

0:09-cv-01775

Docket [Pacer]

June 4, 2020

June 4, 2020

Docket
3

0:09-cv-01775

AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

July 30, 2009

July 30, 2009

Complaint
40

0:09-cv-01775

MOTION TO DISMISS VARIOUS CLAIMS AGAINST STATE DEFENDANTS

July 19, 2010

July 19, 2010

Pleading / Motion / Brief
47

0:09-cv-01775

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Jensen v. Minnesota Department of Health Services

July 19, 2010

July 19, 2010

Pleading / Motion / Brief
42

0:09-cv-01775

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF RULE 12 MOTION TO DISMISS VARIOUS CLAIMS AGAINST STATE DEFENDANTS

July 19, 2010

July 19, 2010

Pleading / Motion / Brief
49

0:09-cv-01775

PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Jensen v. Minnesota Department of Health Services

July 19, 2010

July 19, 2010

Pleading / Motion / Brief

Joint Press Release

Jensen v. Minnesota Department of Health Services

No Court

Sept. 14, 2010

Sept. 14, 2010

Press Release
136

0:09-cv-01775

Final Approval Order for Stipulated Class Action Settlement Agreement

Dec. 5, 2011

Dec. 5, 2011

Order/Opinion
150

0:09-cv-01775

Order

March 21, 2012

March 21, 2012

Order/Opinion
183

0:09-cv-01775

Third Report to the Court: Amendments to the Settlement Agreement

Nov. 21, 2012

Nov. 21, 2012

Monitor/Expert/Receiver Report

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5008475/jensen-v-minnesota-department-of-human-services/

Last updated Aug. 30, 2022, 3:17 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
136

FINAL APPROVAL ORDER FOR STIPULATED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT granting 122 Motion for Approval of Settlement; granting 122 Motion for Attorney Fees. 1. Plaintiffs' Petition for Final Approval of Stipulated Class Action Settlement Agreement (Doc. No. 104 ), and Application for Attorneys' Fees and Costs (Doc. No. 122 ) is hereby GRANTED. Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 12/5/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A) (BJS) (Written Opinion) Modified on 3/7/2012 (TSS).

Dec. 5, 2011

Dec. 5, 2011

RECAP
140

ORDER. The settlement amounts pursuant to the Settlement Agreement shall be paid consistent with the amounts specified in the attached sealed schedule identified as Final Order Exhibit B. Final Order Exhibit B shall be sealed except to the extent eac h individual apportioned amount shall be disclosed to the Class Member being awarded that amount. (See Order for additional details.). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 1/30/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) B)(BJS) (Written Opinion) UNREDACTED VERSION of Exhibit B FILED CONVENTIONALLY UNDER SEAL. RECIEVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE on 01/30/2012. (TSS) Modified on 3/7/2012 (TSS).

Jan. 30, 2012

Jan. 30, 2012

RECAP
141

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM. 1. Use of Funds. The Court respectfully directs that the legal guardians or conservators for the Class Members communicate to each Class Member his or her entitlement to settlement funds. This communication shall include a disc ussion with the Class Member of those recreational activities and items that would add to the quality of life of the Class Member in order to respect and honor the interests and preferences of each Class Member. As intended by the Settlement Agreemen t, the settlement funds shall not be used for any residential costs of care. If a portion of the settlement funds is to be utilized for a prepaid funeral or burial plot, an equivalent amount of the funds shall be utilized to improve the quality of li fe of the Class Member, given that the receipt of the funds will not in any manner jeopardize the eligibility of the Class Member for disability benefits or related services or grants. (See Doc. No. 136 7.) 2. Distribution. The Court respectfully di rects the Department of Human Services to use all available communication methods and tools to provide information about the Settlement Agreement in this case, including this Order and Memorandum, to all county social services directors, case manager s, providers, guardians, and advocacy groups. These communication tools shall include, but not be limited to, an information bulletin, the DHS monthly newsletter, several places on the DHS website, as well as the DHS listservs that reach anyone affected by the Settlement Agreement. 3. The attached Memorandum is made a part hereof. Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 2/14/2012. (BJS) (Written Opinion) Modified on 3/7/2012 (TSS).

Feb. 14, 2012

Feb. 14, 2012

RECAP
144

ORDER 1. Solely to the extent necessary to maintain Class Members' eligibility for governmental benefits, including but not limited to Social Security benefits, the apportioned settlement funds to each Class Member shall be considered a blocked account or conservatorship account consistent with applicable Social Security regulations, applicable Social Security Administration guidance, including Program Operating Manual System (POMS) SI 01140.215, the decision of Navarro by Navarro v. Sulliv an, 751 F. Supp. 349 (E.D.N.Y. 1990), and other applicable law, including this Courts broad equitable powers to render complete justice, see Crawford, et al. v. Janklow, et al., 733 F.2d 541, 542 (8th Cir. 1984); see also White ex rel. Smith v. Apfel , 167 F.3d 369, 375 (7th Cir. 1999) (court's denial of petition to release conservatorship funds rebutted presumption that funds were available for care or maintenance); POMS SI CHI01140.215 (In Minnesota, it cannot be presumed that funds are co nsidered accessible and a countable resource; and any presumption of availability of funds can be nullified if the court order establishing the conservatorship specifically blocks the account from use for food, clothing or shelter). This Court's prior Orders precluding the expenditure of Settlement Funds for costs of care, unpaid bills or rent, and noting that the settlement funds are not a resource, are consistent with the use of a conservatorship account or blocked account, and mean that the Settlement Funds shall not be available or used for support or maintenance, including expenditures for food, clothing or shelter. See Navarro, 750 F. Supp. at 350 (construing social security regulation defining resources as assets that can be liq uidated for support and maintenance and determining settlement award does not constitute a resource, noting: However the items for which the Settlement Order permits use of the funds may be characterized, they are not fairly denominated support and m aintenance.); 20 C.F.R. § 416.1121(h) and § 416.1130(b) (defining support and maintenance as food, or shelter furnished to you); 20 C.F.R. § 416.1157(b) (Support and maintenance assistance means cash provided for the purpose of meeting food or shelter needs....); cf. Brown ex. rel. Brown v. Day, 555 F.3d 882, 885-86 (10th Cir. 2009) (under Social Security regulations and guidance, if an individual has no authority to compel use of trust assets for her own support and maintenance, assets are not considered an available resource); Seidenberg v. Weil, No. Civ. A. 95-WY-2191-WD, 1996 WL 33665490, at *7 (D. Colo. Nov. 1, 1996) (counting trust as available resource where beneficiary cannot compel trustee to use assets for beneficia ry's support and maintenance violates federal Medicaid statute). With this further clarification on the limitation of the use of the settlement funds, expressly precluding expenditure of the Settlement Funds for support or maintenance, Class Me mbers may use their apportioned settlement amounts as a supplement to enhance the quality of their lives consistent with this Courts Orders in this matter without jeopardizing eligibility for ongoing benefits. This is based on the Courts review of al l submissions and the status of the above matter to date, as well as discussions and communication with counsel, including counsel for the United States and the Social Security Administration. Nothing stated in this Order contradicts, or is any way inconsistent with, the Social Security Act and its regulations. (See Order for additional details.)(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 4/23/2012. (BJS)

April 23, 2012

April 23, 2012

RECAP
150

ORDER. 1. The Minnesota Department of Human Services shall make available to the appropriate office(s) of the Social Security Administration, the list of Class Members authorized to receive payments in this matter, the amount of the payment, along w ith that Class Member's social security number. 2. The Social Security Administration shall use this information solely for the purposes it was requested: to effectuate the Court's Orders in this matter to assure that the funds awarded to e ach individual Class Member is not a resource for eligibility purposes and, consequently, an individual settlement amount will not affect, in any way, a Class Members eligibility for disability benefits or other related benefits, or otherwise jeopardize the Class Member's benefits or programming. 3. That all other Orders in this matter shall otherwise remain in full force and effect.(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 5/21/2012. (BJS)

May 22, 2012

May 22, 2012

RECAP
159

ORDER. 1. David Ferleger is hereby appointed as an independent advisor and monitor pursuant to this order. The parties shall cooperate fully with David Ferleger, and provide him with access to the facilities, services, programs, data, and documents relevant to the Settlement Agreement. He may convene meetings, meet relevant individuals and groups, attend case-related court proceedings and review pleadings, motions, and documents submitted to the court. The parties shall serve Mr. Ferleger with all such papers. He shall have ex parte access to the parties, their counsel and to the Court. However, in the event there is any information provided to the Court by David Ferleger which is utilized or otherwise relied upon by the Court for any reas on relating to compliance with the Settlement Agreement, the Court will provide such information to counsel for the parties. 2. Defendants shall file within sixty (60) days a status report on implementation of the Settlement Agreement (apart from the fund distribution). The format and structure for the report shall be developed in cooperation with, and determined by, David Ferleger. 3. The format and structure for the reports of the External Reviewer shall also be developed in cooperation with, and determined by, David Ferleger. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 7/17/2012. (BJS)

July 17, 2012

July 17, 2012

RECAP
188

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM. Consistent with its remarks at the December 11, 2012 Status Conference, the Court respectfully directs the parties to participate in a conference on January 14-15, 2013, to allow ample time, in consultation with David Ferleger, to address a number of issues relating to the status of Defendants' compliance with the Settlement Agreement including, but not limited, to the following: (see Order).(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 12/20/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A)(BJS)

Dec. 20, 2012

Dec. 20, 2012

RECAP
191

ORDER. 1. Consistent with the Court's original order of August 7, 2012, the Clerk of District Court shall issue a check to David Ferleger in the amount of $15,630.62 drawn on this litigation's Registry account. 2. The Department of Hum an Services (DHS) shall issue a check to David Ferleger in the amount of $3,438.96 which represents the difference between the time and expense billed by Mr. Ferleger of $19,069.58 and the remainder of the $50,000--$15,630.62.(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 1/9/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A)(BJS)

Jan. 9, 2013

Jan. 9, 2013

RECAP
204

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM. 1. The Minnesota Department of Human Services (MDHS) is respectfully ordered to issue a check to David Ferleger in the amount of $13,753.86. 2. Consistent with the memorandum attached hereto, the Court respectfully directs the parties to submit within 14 days a proposed budget for David Ferleger that also addresses his role. In the event that the parties are unable to agree to the scope of the role and responsibilities of Mr. Ferleger and/or a budget, the Court will enter an order upon receipt of the submissions of counsel and a response from David Ferleger.(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 3/19/2013. (BJS)

March 19, 2013

March 19, 2013

RECAP
205

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM. 1. Status Conference: By this Order, the Court will respectfully direct Brenda Schaffer, the Court's Calendar Clerk, to set up a chambers conference for all counsel and to verify with respective counsel who should and will be in attendance at the conference. 2. In the context of the issue of noncompliance with the original Settlement Agreement (Doc. No. 104), the Court respectfully declines, absent further order of the Court, to modify the role of David Ferleger or to otherwise approve the stipulation of the parties at this time. However, once the Court has had an opportunity to meet with counsel for each party and has established the role of Mr. Ferleger (with or without agreement of the parties), the Court then expects Deputy Commissioner Ann Barry and David Ferleger to meet and to utilize their best efforts to agree on a budget for David Ferleger. Moreover, the Court intends to inform the parties at the status conference that given the status of the case , including the issues of noncompliance, the focus of David Ferleger will be to evaluate compliance and noncompliance issues vis--vis a mediation approach. Consequently, with or without agreement of the parties, the Court will establish the role and function of David Ferleger, as well as establish the budget for his services, if the parties are unable to reach an agreement.3. The Court expressly reserves the right to request the assistance of the United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, with respect to compliance issues with the Settlement Agreement and the Orders of this Court. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 3/19/2013. (BJS)

March 19, 2013

March 19, 2013

RECAP
212

AMENDED ORDER AND MEMORANDUM. (Please note there are no substantive changes to this amended order; only minor typographical errors have been corrected.) 1. Role of David Ferleger. The external reviewer function, as set forth in the Stipulated Class A ction Settlement Agreement at paragraph VII.B (External Reviewer) will be subsumed within the Monitor's role as originally set forth in the Court's July 17, 2012 Order, at which time the Court appointed David Ferleger as the Court's in dependent consultant and monitor. 2. Monitor's Investigation and Reports. The Monitor will independently investigate, verify, and report on compliance with the Settlement Agreement and the policies set forth therein on a quarterly basis. Those q uarterly reports shall inform the Court and the parties whether the Monitor believes, based upon his investigation, without relying on the conclusion of the DHS, that Defendants are in substantial compliance with the Settlement Agreement and the poli cies set forth therein. The Court expects the reports to set forth the factual basis for any recommendations and conclusions. Further, the reports shall set forth whether the DHS is operating consistent with the best practices pursuant to the Settlem ent Agreement. Consequently, the Court respectfully declines to accept the parties' stipulation to limit the role of the Monitor. (See Order for additional details.)(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 4/25/2013. (BJS) Modified on 4/26/2013 (akl).

April 25, 2013

April 25, 2013

RECAP
214

ORDER. The Department of Human Services ("DHS") shall forthwith issue a check to David Ferleger in the amount of $13,753.86 in payment of his Invoice for the period December 13, 2012 to February 7, 2013. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 5/29/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A)(BJS)

1 Attachment A

View on PACER

May 29, 2013

May 29, 2013

RECAP
215

ORDER. The Department of Human Services ("DHS") shall forthwith issue a check to David Ferleger in the amount of $12,119.30 in payment of his Invoice for the period February 11 - April 22, 2013. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 5/29/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A)(BJS) Modified docket text on 5/30/2013 (TSS).

1 Attachment A

View on PACER

May 29, 2013

May 29, 2013

RECAP
223

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM. The Court, having been advised by the Court Monitor that the parties have agreed that the Courts retention of jurisdiction over the above-entitled matter may be extended for an additional year to December 4, 2014, beyond the cur rent December 4, 2013 date, pursuant to Section XVIII.B. of the Settlement Agreement, the Court hereby extends its jurisdiction over this matter to December 4, 2014. However, the Court expressly reserves the authority and jurisdiction to order an add itional extension of jurisdiction, depending upon the status of compliance by the Defendants with the specific provisions of the Settlement Agreement, absent stipulation of the parties. (See Order for additional details.) (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 8/27/2013. (BJS)

Aug. 27, 2013

Aug. 27, 2013

RECAP
224

AMENDED ORDER AND MEMORANDUM. (Please note there are no substantive changes to this amended order; only minor typographical errors have been corrected.) The Court, having been advised by the Court Monitor that the parties have agreed that the Court s retention of jurisdiction over the above-entitled matter may be extended for an additional year to December 4, 2014, beyond the current December 4, 2013 date, pursuant to Section XVIII.B. of the Settlement Agreement, the Court hereby extends its ju risdiction over this matter to December 4, 2014. However, the Court expressly reserves the authority and jurisdiction to order an additional extension of jurisdiction, depending upon the status of compliance by the Defendants with the specific provisions of the Settlement Agreement, absent stipulation of the parties. (See Order for additional details.) (Written Opinion.) Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 08/28/2013. (RLB)

Aug. 28, 2013

Aug. 28, 2013

RECAP
259

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. 1. The Court finds and concludes that Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions (Doc. No. 230 ) is GRANTED. However, for the reasons stated off the bench at the time of the hearing and in this Memorandum and Order, the Court reser ves ruling on what sanctions are appropriate, pending receipt of the status of compliance by Defendants and the status of the implementation plan required by this Court, noted in the Court's Memorandum and Order. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 12/17/2013. (BJS)

Dec. 17, 2013

Dec. 17, 2013

RECAP
265

ORDER (see Order for details). (Written Opinion.) Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 01/22/2014. (RLB)

Jan. 22, 2014

Jan. 22, 2014

RECAP
266

ORDER (see Order for details). (Written Opinion.) Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 01/22/2014. (RLB)

Jan. 22, 2014

Jan. 22, 2014

RECAP
340

ORDER. 1. The Court APPROVES the Court Monitor's Report to the Court: Community Compliance Review (Doc. No. 327 ). (See Order for additional information.) (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 9/3/2014. (BJS)

Sept. 3, 2014

Sept. 3, 2014

RECAP
344

ORDER. 1. The Court DECLINES TO ADOPT the State's Proposed Olmstead Plan (Doc. No. [326-1]) at this time. 2. The parties shall submit a revised Olmstead Plan to the Court Monitor by November 10, 2014. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 9/18/2014. (BJS)

Sept. 18, 2014

Sept. 18, 2014

RECAP
379

ORDER. 1. Defendants' Motion to Amend the Comprehensive Plan of Action (Doc. No. 317 ) is DENIED AS MOOT. 2. Defendants shall continue to report to the Court Monitor on a regular basis regarding D.P.'s living situation. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 1/13/2015. (BJS)

Jan. 13, 2015

Jan. 13, 2015

RECAP
400

ORDER. Defendants' request for clarification of the Court's January 9, 2015 Order and an extension of time (Doc. No. 398 ) is DENIED. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 3/19/2015. (BJS)

March 19, 2015

March 19, 2015

RECAP
410

AMENDED ORDER. Pursuant to and under the terms of the Order of March 19, 2014, the Clerk shall forthwith issue a check to David Ferleger in the amount of $43,593.11 drawn on this litigations Registry account. Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 4/10/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A)(BJS)

April 10, 2015

April 10, 2015

RECAP
435

ORDER. 1. The Court DECLINES TO ADOPT the States Proposed Olmstead Plan (Doc. No. [401-1]). 2. The parties shall submit a revised Olmstead Plan to the Court by July 10, 2015. The revised Olmstead Plan shall encompass the requirements of the Settlemen t Agreement and prior orders of this Court and shall respond to previously identified gaps and deficiencies in the States proposed Olmstead Plan. 3. In lieu of contempt and other sanctions at this time, the Court requires Defendants to fulfill their obligations in a timely manner for the Courts review and approval; attend any status conferences that may be scheduled by the undersigned or Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson regarding the Olmstead Plan; and actively seek input from the consultants t o the parties, Dr. Colleen Wieck and Roberta Opheim, in this process. 4. The Court expressly reserves the right to issue an order to show cause or impose sanctions, depending upon the status of compliance with the specific provisions of the Settlement Agreement and the Courts orders, as noted above. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 5/6/2015. (BJS)

May 6, 2015

May 6, 2015

RECAP
464

ORDER 1. Defendants' motion (Doc. No. 446 ) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 2. The Department of Human Services, in consultation with the Ombudsman for Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities, shall create a provisional discharge plan for W.O . for his transfer from the Minnesota Security Hospital. This plan shall be submitted to the Court, with a copy to Plaintiffs' counsel, by July 31, 2015. 3. The Department of Human Services shall submit Dr. Gary LaVigna's report on W.O. to the Court as soon as the report becomes available. 4. The parties shall attend a status conference on August 4, 2015, at 9:00 a.m., to provide the Court with an update regarding the status of W.O., including, but not limited to, the following issues: (1) whether W.O. has been moved from the Minnesota Security Hospital; and (2) if W.O. has not been moved from the Minnesota Security Hospital, what placement options have been identified and pursued and what transition plans have been made with resp ect to W.O. In addition to the parties, the Court invites the Ombudsman for Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities, the county officials involved in the state proceeding, including the Dakota County attorney and defense counsel, as well as W.O. s social workers and any involved mental health professionals, to the August 4, 2015 status conference. The conference will take place in the 7th Floor Conference Room of the Warren E. Burger Federal Building and United States Courthouse, 316 North Robert Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101.5. As the Court indicated at the hearing, it is the expectation of the Court that there will be collaboration between the parties, the Ombudsman for Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities, and the involv ed county officials with respect to W.O.'s situation. Separately, it is the expectation of the Court that the Department of Human Services will provide an analysis of the names of individuals who are high or frequent users of crisis services, ho spitalizations, and inpatient psychiatric units to Plaintiffs and to the Ombudsman for Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities by July 22, 2015. Finally, as the Court has stated in previous Orders, it is the expectation of the Court that the Dep artment of Human Services will seek the input of the Ombudsman for Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities and the Executive Director of the Minnesota Governor's Council on Developmental Disabilities in this process. (See, e.g., Doc. No. 435 ("May 6, 2015 Order") at 9; Doc. No. 340 ("September 3, 2014 Order") at 4.)(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 6/24/2015. (BJS)

June 24, 2015

June 24, 2015

RECAP
510

ORDER. 1. The Court APPROVES the State's Olmstead Plan (Doc. No. 486 -1). 2. The Court reserves ruling on the approval of the Olmstead Plan's implementation plan because corresponding workplans are not yet submitted to the Court. (See Do c. No. 486 -1 at 16.) Once these workplans are submitted, the Court will review and approve the implementation plan based on the recommendations and input of Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson. 3. The Court reserves the right to exercise its continui ng jurisdiction with respect to the revised Olmstead Plan to ensure that compliance with the Settlement Agreement is verified going forward. This paragraph contemplates that the Court will continue to carry out its oversight responsibility to oversee the State's efforts in following through on the significant commitments it has made. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 9/29/2015. (BJS) Modified text on 9/30/2015 (lmb).

Sept. 29, 2015

Sept. 29, 2015

RECAP
545

ORDER FOR REPORTING ON SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. 1. The Minnesota Department of Human Services ("DHS") shall submit to the Court, Plaintiffs' Class Counsel, the Ombudsman for Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities, and the Executive Director of the Minnesota Governor's Council on Developmental Disabilities ("Consultants") exception, semi-annual, and annual Comprehensive Plan of Action ("CPA") reports based on the schedule listed in the attached Exhibit A entitled "Jensen Settlement Agreement Comprehensive Plan of Action Reporting Schedule. Appendix A." (See attached Exhibit A.) 2. Semi-annual reporting shall occur according to the following schedule: a. First semi-annual (January, February , March, April, May, June) CPA report due date August 31.2 b. Second semi-annual (July, August, September, October, November, December) CPA report due date February 28, or, in the case of a leap year, February 29. (See Order for additional information.)(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 2/22/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A)(BJS)

Feb. 22, 2016

Feb. 22, 2016

RECAP
551

ORDER. 1. Defendants' Verification Obligations. (See attached Exhibit A for a summary of the verification obligations discussed below.); 2. Changes to Subsequent Compliance Update Reports; 3. Court Monitoring. (See attached Exhibit B for a summary of the verification duties discussed below.) 4. Other Reporting Requirements (See Order for details on each ruling.) (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 3/18/2106. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(BJS)

March 18, 2016

March 18, 2016

RECAP
638

ORDER. 1. Defendants' objection to the Court's continuing jurisdiction is OVERRULED. 2. Absent further order of the Court, all reporting obligations previously imposed shall remain in place. 3. The Court will convene a bi-annual status con ference in this matter in December 2017. Prior to this status conference, the parties shall meet and confer to discuss the essential steps that remain in Defendants' implementation of the Agreement before the Court can equitably terminate its jurisdiction over this matter. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 6/28/2017. (BJS)

June 28, 2017

June 28, 2017

RECAP
689

Scheduling Order

June 25, 2018

June 25, 2018

PACER
691

Scheduling Order

July 10, 2018

July 10, 2018

PACER
693

Order for Party to File Document/Respond to Court

July 19, 2018

July 19, 2018

PACER
729

Scheduling Order

April 9, 2019

April 9, 2019

PACER
733

Order/Notice to Attorney

April 15, 2019

April 15, 2019

PACER
737

ORDER RE: STATUS CONFERENCE. The Court's jurisdiction is extended to September 15, 2020. The Court expressly reserves the authority and jurisdiction to order an additional extension of jurisdiction, depending upon the status of Defendants' compliance and absence stipulation of the parties. Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 6/17/2019. (See Order for Further Details, Requirements and Deadlines) (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 6/17/2019. (las)

June 17, 2019

June 17, 2019

RECAP

Order in Response to Letter/Request/E-mail

Aug. 26, 2019

Aug. 26, 2019

PACER
757

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 741 Defendants' Motion to Alter or Amend the Courts June 17,2019 Order (Doc. No. 741 ) is DENIED. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 8/28/2019. (las)

Aug. 28, 2019

Aug. 28, 2019

RECAP

Order/Notice to Attorney

Aug. 30, 2019

Aug. 30, 2019

PACER
779

Briefing Order

Dec. 18, 2019

Dec. 18, 2019

PACER

Order Cancelling Deadline

Dec. 30, 2019

Dec. 30, 2019

PACER
794

ORDER denying 784 Defendants' Motion to Stay Pending Appeal. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 2/4/2020. (LJL)

Feb. 4, 2020

Feb. 4, 2020

RECAP
795

Order/Notice to Attorney

Feb. 4, 2020

Feb. 4, 2020

PACER

Order in Response to Letter/Request/E-mail

Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

PACER
798

Order/Notice to Attorney

Feb. 13, 2020

Feb. 13, 2020

PACER
820

Order/Notice to Attorney

March 4, 2020

March 4, 2020

PACER
823

ORDER - Defendants' Motion to Stay Pending Appeal (Doc. No. 806 ) is DENIED.(Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 3/9/2020. (las)

March 9, 2020

March 9, 2020

RECAP
831

Order for Party to File Document/Respond to Court

April 6, 2020

April 6, 2020

PACER

Order/Notice to Attorney

May 14, 2020

May 14, 2020

PACER

Order for Party to File Document/Respond to Court

May 14, 2020

May 14, 2020

PACER

Order for Party to File Document/Respond to Court

May 18, 2020

May 18, 2020

PACER

Order for Party to File Document/Respond to Court

May 28, 2020

May 28, 2020

PACER

Order/Notice of Hearing/Deadlines (Setting/Resetting)

June 3, 2020

June 3, 2020

PACER

Order for Party to File Document/Respond to Court

June 4, 2020

June 4, 2020

PACER
850

Order/Notice to Attorney

June 16, 2020

June 16, 2020

PACER
851

Scheduling Order

June 17, 2020

June 17, 2020

PACER

Order/Notice to Attorney

June 30, 2020

June 30, 2020

PACER

Order in Response to Letter/Request/E-mail

July 6, 2020

July 6, 2020

PACER

Order for Party to File Document/Respond to Court

July 16, 2020

July 16, 2020

PACER

Order/Notice to Attorney

July 21, 2020

July 21, 2020

PACER
872

Order/Notice to Attorney

Aug. 13, 2020

Aug. 13, 2020

PACER

Order in Response to Letter/Request/E-mail

Aug. 14, 2020

Aug. 14, 2020

PACER
879

ORDER: 1. Compliance: Defendants have substantially complied with all requirements pursuant to this lawsuit. 2. Jurisdiction: The Court's jurisdiction over this matter shall end on October 24, 2020. 3. Status Conference: The Status Conference scheduled for September 24, 2020 is cancelled. Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 9/4/2020.(las)

Sept. 4, 2020

Sept. 4, 2020

RECAP
880

Judgment (Clerk's Office Only)

Sept. 8, 2020

Sept. 8, 2020

PACER
895

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions and Appointment of Independent Reviewer (Doc. No. 881 ) is respectfully DENIED. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 10/22/2020. (las)

Oct. 22, 2020

Oct. 22, 2020

RECAP
902

Order on Motion to Withdraw/Disburse/Release Funds

Dec. 7, 2020

Dec. 7, 2020

PACER
904

Order/Notice to Attorney

Dec. 17, 2020

Dec. 17, 2020

PACER
905

Order in Response to Letter/Request/E-mail

Jan. 11, 2021

Jan. 11, 2021

PACER
907

Order/Notice to Attorney

Jan. 29, 2021

Jan. 29, 2021

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Minnesota

Case Type(s):

Mental Health (Facility)

Special Collection(s):

Olmstead Cases

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: July 10, 2009

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Patients of the Minnesota Extended Treatment Options program with developmental disabilities who were frequently subjected to abusive, inhumane, cruel and improper use of seclusion and mechanical restraints

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Minnesota Department of Human Services (Cambridge, Isanti), State

Defendant Type(s):

Hospital/Health Department

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

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

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

State law

Constitutional Clause(s):

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Equal Protection

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Monetary Relief

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Attorneys fees

Damages

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: 3,050,000

Order Duration: 2011 - 2020

Content of Injunction:

Goals (e.g., for hiring, admissions)

Monitor/Master

Monitoring

Reasonable Accommodation

Recordkeeping

Reporting

Training

Preliminary relief request withdrawn/mooted

Issues

General:

Assault/abuse by staff

Confinement/isolation

Deinstitutionalization/decarceration

Education

Habilitation (training/treatment)

Housing

Incident/accident reporting & investigations

Individualized planning

Neglect by staff

Reasonable Accommodations

Reasonable Modifications

Record-keeping

Records Disclosure

Restraints : physical

Special education

Transportation

Wait lists

Discrimination-basis:

Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)

Disability:

Integrated setting

Least restrictive environment

Mental impairment

Mental Disability:

Autism

Developmental disability without intellectual disability

Intellectual/developmental disability, unspecified

Schizophrenia

Medical/Mental Health:

Intellectual/Developmental Disability

Mental health care, general

Type of Facility:

Government-run