RICHARD S. CASE SETTLES

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0 height="100%"><tr> <td valign="top" width=180 BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000"> <div> <A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="RICHARD S. CASE SETTLES"><U>Richard S</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id3.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Richard S. Injunction"><U>Richard S. Injunction</U></A></div> <div> <IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="50" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" WIDTH="50">                              </div> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div>                  <IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="50" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" WIDTH="50"></div> <bR> <bR> </td> <td valign="top" BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000"> <bR> <div> <A HREF="http://www.oaksgroup.org" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.oaksgroup.org"><U><IMG SRC="0064a4a0.gif" border=0 width="74" height="74" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></U></A></div> <div> The parties in Richard S. et al. v. DDS et al. v. Bell et al. reached a</div> <div> settlement agreement on March 30th. The settlement came on the heels of</div> <div> Judge Taylor's March 27, 2000 Order on the parties' motions for summary</div> <div> judgment which eliminated much of the plaintiffs' case. The Order and the</div> <div> settlement are briefly summarized below. Copies of the Order can be obtained</div> <div> from Intervenors' counsel--either Ellen Goldblatt in PAI's Oakland office or</div> <div> Eric Gelber in PAI's Sacramento office. The settlement itself, while agreed</div> <div> to on the record, will not be available in final, written form until about</div> <div> May 1, 2000.</div> <bR> <div> Summary Judgment:</div> <bR> <div> The court noted that, with the recent death of plaintiff Richard S. while</div> <div> living at Fairview DC, there might no longer be a case or controversy.</div> <div> Nonetheless, he made several rulings on the parties' motions.</div> <bR> <div> First, and most significantly, the Court granted intervenors' motion</div> <div> challenging plaintiffs' ADA claim and held that the ADA integration mandate,</div> <div> which prohibits unjustified institutional placement, is not violated by</div> <div> premature discharge into the community as the plaintiffs' had alleged. The</div> <div> Court, citing the Supreme Court's Olmstead opinion, said: "It may be a bad</div> <div> medical decision, or poor policy, but it is not discrimination based on</div> <div> disability." In other words, the ADA, which was intended to prohibit</div> <div> unnecessary segregation, can't be used to keep people institutionalized.</div> <bR> <div> The Court also rejected plaintiffs' claim that DDS' failure to provide</div> <div> conservators for DC residents is discrimination on the basis of disability.</div> <div> The Court questioned whether this denies any benefit or has any</div> <div> discriminatory effect.</div> <bR> <div> The Court rejected plaintiffs' claim on behalf of DC physicians that they</div> <div> were retaliated against for asserting consumers' ADA rights. No physician</div> <div> was a party to the action, the Court held, so no one had standing to raise</div> <div> that claim. (Therefore, the Court didn't need to address intervenors' other</div> <div> argument that there could be no retaliation claim for asserting an ADA right</div> <div> to institutionalization, since there is no such right under the ADA.)</div> <bR> <div> The Court denied the plaintiffs' motion in which they claimed that the IPP</div> <div> process violates the "professional judgment" standard by not giving greater</div> <div> deference to physicians in deciding if people could be moved to the</div> <div> community. This claim would have required proof at trial through evidence</div> <div> which plaintiffs failed to offer in support of their summary judgment</div> <div> motion.</div> <bR> <div> The Court granted DDS' motion eliminating plaintiffs' Social Security Act</div> <div> claims alleging denial of notice and fair hearing rights, since the</div> <div> plaintiffs had not sued the right agency to raise these claims.</div> <bR> <div> The Court said it did not have to decide the issue of whether administrative</div> <div> fair hearings or court hearings are proper for resolving disputes about</div> <div> community placement recommendations for DC residents.</div> <bR> <div> Finally, the Court granted summary judgment on intervenors' claim against</div> <div> DDS challenging DDS' policy of giving conservators and family members veto</div> <div> power over IPP team recommendations for community placement. While parents</div> <div> and conservators views should be taken into consideration, the Court found</div> <div> that the policy improperly allowed third parties to simply waive DC</div> <div> residents' rights. The Court will be issuing an injunction preventing</div> <div> further application of the policy.</div> <bR> <div> Settlement:</div> <bR> <div> With most of plaintiffs' case disposed of on summary judgment, a settlement</div> <div> was reached that would allow an IPP team member who objects to a community</div> <div> placement recommendation for a DC resident to have his/her objection noted</div> <div> in the IPP and "highlighted." In this instance, the team's recommendation</div> <div> would also be highlighted. When a placement is found, notice of the</div> <div> placement recommendation, along with the IPP itself, would then be forwarded</div> <div> to the county Superior Court which had ordered the DC placement. The</div> <div> objector could also sign a form that would ask the court to hold a hearing</div> <div> on the placement issue. It would be up to the court whether such a hearing</div> <div> would be held. The settlement also requires that IPP meetings be held at</div> <div> times that take into account the schedules of IPP team members.</div> <bR> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>