************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
--- Begin Message ---
----- Original Message -----
From: Barbara Duncan
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 12:16 PM
Subject: Victory for Institutionalized Californians
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:Barbara Duncan
Director of Communications
Protection & Advocacy, Inc. (CA) c/o NDR
Phone: (510) 267-1256
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Victory for Institutionalized Californians
Disability Civil Rights Lawsuit to Proceed as Class Action
San Francisco, CA- The Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District
handed a significant victory to people with developmental disabilities who
are institutionalized throughout California. The court held that the
Alameda County Superior Court case-Capitol People First (CPF) v. Department
of Developmental Services (DDS)-may proceed as a class action on behalf of
more than 7000 individuals who receive services from regional centers and
are either living in state or private institutions, or are at risk of
institutionalization.
PAI managing attorney Eric Gelber, who argued the appeal, said "the ruling
means that even people with significant disabilities have meaningful access
to the courts to vindicate their rights to live as a part of rather than
apart from the community." Brad Seligman, executive director of the Impact
Fund, who also participated in the oral arguments, said "the decision is a
ringing re-affirmation of the importance of class actions to challenge
broad-based violations of the law. It reminds lower courts that they must
take seriously evidence showing a pattern of illegal conduct." The Impact
Fund was one of 15 advocacy organizations participating as amici curiae in
support of the plaintiffs.
Background
State and federal laws give people with disabilities the right to live and
receive services in integrated community-based settings, rather than
institutions, when their needs can be met in the less restrictive, community
settings. In the early 1990's, PAI brought a lawsuit on behalf of people
with developmental disabilities who had been recommended for placement in
the community but still remained institutionalized. That class action
lawsuit-Coffelt v. DDS-settled and resulted in the community placement of
some 2400 individuals over a 5-year period and many system reforms.
"Pressure Was Off"
After the settlement period ended, the pace of people moving into the
community slowed down even though, as the Court of Appeal noted in its
opinion on September 25, state officials have said that the vast majority,
if not 100% of developmental center residents could live successfully in the
community with appropriate supports and services. But, as state witnesses
further said, without a court-approved settlement, "the pressure was off."
This slowdown led to the filing of the CPF v. DDS lawsuit, which named DDS,
other state agencies, and the state's 21 regional centers as defendants. It
was filed on behalf of individual class members and taxpayers as well as
organizational plaintiffs -- Capitol People First, The Arc of California and
California Alliance for Inclusive Communities, Inc. The aim of the lawsuit
was to eliminate systemic policies and practices of the state and regional
centers resulting in the unnecessary institutionalization of thousands of
people with developmental disabilities. Plaintiffs are represented by PAI,
a non-profit disability-rights advocacy agency, and pro bono counsel with
Bingham McCutcheon and DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary.
Court Dismisses Opposition's Arguments
Defendants opposed class certification, arguing that because everyone's
needs are individual, issues over inappropriate institutionalization can
only be addressed on an individual, case-by-case basis. Defendants and
organizational interveners representing family members of institutionalized
individuals also argued that the plaintiffs and their counsel could not
represent the interests of all class members. Trial court judge, Ronald
Sabraw, agreed and denied class certification.
In today's overturning of Sabraw's ruling, the appellate court found in
clear terms that "the trial court ignored or misunderstood the guiding
principles of California law and thus based its decision on improper
criteria and erroneous legal assumptions." The appellate court noted that
"the very nature of this class cries out for a class treatment and a
systemic approach" because the people whose rights allegedly have been
violated are persons with cognitive or other severe disabilities without
resources to undertake the daunting task of seeking relief on their own.
Discovery in the case, which has been stayed while the class certification
appeal was pending, will now proceed and, unless the parties reach a
settlement, the case is expected to go to trial in Fall 2008.
###
Background on the case, including legal documents and press coverage
2002-2006, can be read at www.pai-ca.org/advocacy/cpfvdds/index.htm
NATIONAL ADAPT MAILING LIST - Adapt Community Choice Act List
http://www.adapt.org
--- End Message ---
