On October 16, 2009, the Georgia Advocacy Office (GAO), a non-profit Georgia corporation that provides protection and advocacy services to individuals with disabilities, filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The plaintiffs sued Georgia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities and the Regional Hospital Administrator at Southwestern State Hospital (SWSH) under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 42 U.S.C. 10801. The plaintiffs, represented by the Fulton County Attorney’s Office, the Georgia Advocacy Office, and private counsel, sought injunctive and declaratory relief requiring the defendants to comply with the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act (PAIMI) and permit plaintiffs entrance to their facilities. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that they suspected a patient had been sexually assaulted while at SWSH. When GAO tried to investigate the facility, the defendants denied them access.

Along with their complaint, the plaintiff also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a motion for a preliminary injunction. On October 22, 2009, Judge Charles A. Pannell Jr. denied the temporary restraining order and set a hearing for the motion for a preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 2, 2009, which included more information on the responsibilities of the GAO and the defendants. Throughout November and December, the parties attempted to come to an agreement. As they did so, the plaintiff removed the motion for a preliminary injunction.

These negotiations were unsuccessful, and on May 7, 2010, both parties filed a motion for summary judgment. Judge Pannell Jr. denied both motions on March 9, 2011. He held that there were still issues of fact to be resolved, and that the PAIMI Act required parties to try to resolve conflicts through mediation before initiating litigation. The parties entered into mediation with a third party in April 2011. By September, they had formed a stipulation agreement, which Judge Pannell approved on September 30, 2011. The agreement required the defendants to provide plaintiffs with reasonable unaccompanied access to their facilities, information, and records. The agreement was to be enforced through the court until August 31, 2014. The parties were unable to agree as to peer review documents (documents created when health care providers evaluate one another). This issue remained open in court, and on October 31, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion for permanent injunction requiring the defendants to provide them with access to peer review documents when requested.

On May 9, 2012, Judge Pannell Jr. granted the motion for permanent injunction, holding that peer review document were within the definition of “record” as outlined in the PAIMI Act. He then granted plaintiffs attorneys fees on September 12, 2012 for $39,561.50.

Gabriela Hybel - 09/24/2017


compress summary