Summary Class action challenged denial of methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) to Medicaid eligible people because the county they live in did not have a MMT program.
Progress Appeal Court upheld ruling stating services should be provided; with 'reasonable promptness', evenly across the state & with adequate scope & duration of treatment, noting that if beneficiaries wait different lengths of time, it constitutes discrimination

Summary Case challenging the placement of people with MR/DD in institutions.
Progress Settlement (a net decrease of 2,000 in the institutional population over 5 years & improved HCBS).

Summary Case (brought by doctor) claiming that plaintiffs should not be discharged to the community because they were in the most integrated setting appropriate (DD Centers).
Progress Settlement (included provision that treating professionals can express an objection to a community placement).

Summary Class action challenging failure to comply with PASRR, improperly imposing caps on mental health rehabilitation & not providing services in the least restrictive setting.
Progress Case voluntarily dismissed as appropriate placements were identified

Summary Case regarding lack of provision of therapeutic behavioral health services to medically needy children receiving EPDST services under Medicaid.
Progress Complaint upheld.

Summary Case brought by the Administrator of the estate of a person with mental illness, claiming the state violated the ADA by discharging the individual from a private institution to the community.
Progress Complaint dismissed. Appeal Court ruled that Olmstead clarified that the ADA does not impose a standard of care on states & does not prohibit inappropriate community discharge

Summary Case brought by association of health association to include certain add-ons when the state determines reimbursement rates.
Progress. Appeals court ruled that the district court's award of summary judgment for the defendants were inappropriate and remanded for further proceedings.

Summary Plaintiffs (including service providers) challenged the disparity between wages for direct support professionals in institutions & in the community¹¹.
Progress Case dismissed. The court decided the trial would only examine whether payments are sufficient to provide quality services. The court dismissed the case as Medicaid law does not give individually enforceable rights. This was affirmed by the appeals court.

Summary Class action brought by a coalition of organizations on behalf of residents of Laguna Honda nursing facility. The US Dept of Justice also conducted an investigation & found it to be in breach of Olmstead.
Progress Settlement (includes targeted case management for people living in the facility or at risk of admission). The state will also revise their screening program for individuals with psychiatric disabilities with an emphasis on community alternatives versus nursing homes. The plaintiffs reserve the right to re-file the lawsuits if there are insufficient community options.

Summary Case brought by Medicaid recipients & a pharmacist providing Medicaid services to prevent California from instituting a 5% rate reduction in Medicaid payments.
Progress Case dismissed.

Summary Class action suit for all Californians with MR/DD in, or at risk of placement in institutions challenges that the state unnecessarily institutionalizes people with MR/DD & requests changes including that the state offers the full range of Medicaid & state HCBS.
Progress Settlement. Final approval of the settlement in April 2009. The settlement will see the state provide additional funds for case management to assist class members in state-run institutions called developmental centers (DC); improved information to class members and training for DC staff about community living options; increased state-level coordination of services for people diagnosed with developmental and mental health disabilities; and continued funding and program efforts to provide community living alternatives for class members.

Details of the settlement can be found at:
[http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/advocacy/CPFvDDS/Summary_of_Settlement-2009-04-27.pdf]

Additional information about the case can be found at:
[http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/advocacy/CPFvDDS/index.htm]

Summary Case challenging the closure of Rancho Los Amigos Rehabilitation Hospital. It argues that without the service, people with disabilities will not learn to live independently & risk institutionalization & are being treated differently to other Medicaid beneficiaries.
Progress Settlement. The County will keep Rancho open for at least three years from the date the settlement becomes final, unless a buyer appears before this time. During this time period, Rancho will continue providing medical services to people with disabilities and will a buyer for the hospital or establish a nonprofit organization to take it over. If the hospital closes, the County must provide adequate continuation of services for its patients with Medi-Cal.

To download the settlement agreement:
[https://www.disabilityrightslegalcenter.org/documents/SettlementAgreement.doc]

Summary Six residents of Laguna Hospital, joined by the Independent Living Resource Center of San Francisco, filed a class-action lawsuit challenging the City and County of San Francisco's policies regarding the institutionalization of people with disabilities. The plaintiffs argue that they are capable of and would prefer to live in the community.
Progress. Settlement. Final approval of the settlement given in Sept 2008. For plaintiffs and eligible Laguna Honda residents, the settlement consists of access to a Medi-Cal HCBS waiver, a rental subsidy program that will provide accessible housing and care coordination for programs such as attendant and nursing care, care management, mental health services, assistance with meals and substance abuse treatment

To view a summary of the lawsuit:
[http://www.pai-ca.org/advocacy/lhh/index.htm]

To review the entire settlement agreement:
[http://www.pai-ca.org/advocacy/LHH/Settlement_Agreement_FINAL_12-03-07.pdf]

Summary Class action suit challenged the state's practice of confining mentally ill children who are in the state's foster care system or at risk of removal from their families and who have mental health needs into hospitals and large group homes rather than home and community-based options.
Progress Ongoing. The district court ordered that the state must provide community services to children with mental health needs A special master was appointed by the court to facilitate an agreement between the parties in 2009.

For asummary of the case:
[http://www.bazelon.org/incourt/docket/katieA.htm]

To view the original complaint:
[http://www.bazelon.org/issues/children/incourt/KatieA/katiea_complaint.pdf]