Clearinghouse coding complete
In September 1985, the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) commenced an investigation of the Montgomery Developmental Center [MDC] in Huber Heights, Ohio, pursuant to the Civil Rights of Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. §1997. The investigation included a two day tour of the MDC by an independent medical expert who specialized in the administration of medical care to institutionalized intellectually disabled individuals. The DOC also reviewed and analyzed documents, including policies and procedures in effect at MDC.
Following the investigation, the DOJ issued its findings letter dated March 5, 1987, which detailed deficiencies at the MDC, particularly in the areas of medication administration practices and resident safety. The DOJ found that an unusually high number of MDC residents were administered psychotropic medication and that MDC residents frequently sustained injuries from accidents, self-abuse, and resident-to-resident aggression. Record keeping in both areas of concern was noted as inadequate. The MDC was granted a period of three months for state officials, including the Office of the Attorney General, to voluntarily remedy the outstanding deficiencies.
The DOJ sent an updated findings letter in December 1987, noting that its expert reported that the MDC had made substantial efforts to improve medication practices but had not properly addressed the issue of resident safety. As the MDC continued to reduce its reliance on medicating residents, the expert predicted that the incidents of injuries would remain unchanged or could worsen. The DOJ made recommendations to remedy the concerns and proposed a retour of the MDC in three months.
We have no further information on this matter.
Dan Dalton (3/14/2007)
Reynolds, William Bradford (District of Columbia)
Last updated Aug. 30, 2023, 2:47 p.m.Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.
State / Territory: Ohio
Case Ongoing: No reason to think so
United States Department of Justice
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Causes of Action:
Special Case Type(s):
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Type of Facility: