Summary Case regarding 2 individuals, one with TBI, one with multiple sclerosis & mental illness. Both were denied access to the state attendant care program as they cannot hire/supervise attendants or manage legal/financial affairs.
Progress Court found their inclusion would be a fundamental alteration & is not 'state discrimination ...it is a case where an additional handicap...renders participation in the program ineffectual'

Further details
[http://www.cms.hhs.gov/smdl/downloads/smd072998.pdf]

Summary This successful case is lauded¹¹ (along with Richard C. v. Houstoun, PA9) as a key influence in the development of deinstitutionalization efforts in Pennsylvania.

Summary The plaintiff was confined to a nursing facility even though it was determined that she could live in the community with PAS⁵¹⁰.
Progress Court ruled the state's failure to provide services in the most integrated setting violated the ADA & the provision of waiver services would not fundamentally alter the nature of the program.

Summary Case regarding individual found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity & committed to state hospital. Plaintiff sued the hospital for extending his commitment & not treating his dyslexia in a more integrated setting.
Progress Court ruled the plaintiff was not a qualified person under the ADA since he had been assessed as dangerous & to treat him in the community would be a fundamental alteration of the state program.

Summary In this class action, the court ruled favorably for patients in a state psychiatric hospital who had a dual diagnosis & were seeking treatment in the community.¹⁰

Summary Case regarding people living in the state hospital despite being assessed as eligible for community placement.
Progress Settlement

Summary Class action regarding waitlists (filed by the Disability Law Center).

Summary Case regarding waitlists (filed by the Disability Law Center).
Progress Lawsuit withdrawn after the Governor announced a plan to reduce the waiting list.

Summary Lawsuit by families of people with DD who were to be moved out of a facility that was to be closed.
Progress Court ruled that Olmstead did not mean that people have the right to stay in institutions if they refuse HCBS

Summary Case regarding residents of a state nursing facility for seniors. Plaintiffs sought to remove eligible persons from the institutions into HCBS settings.
Progress Settlement. The state will evaluate residents of the nursing facility to see if they are appropriate for discharge to the community.

Summary Class action about a limit on the number of individuals served through the Person/Family-directed Supports waiver.
Progress Settlement. Provides that the state will request funding to serve the number of individuals authorized in the waiver program.

Summary Class action regarding plaintiffs institutionalized in state hospital despite recommendation for community placement.
Progress Settlement. The state submitted a four-year plan regarding the community placement of Norristown State Hospital

Summary Case brought by a coalition of agencies providing services to individuals in ICF/MR &/or the HCBS waiver program for people with MR/DD, which asks the court to order that direct care staff costs are reimbursed & updated.
Progress Case dismissed

Summary Plaintiffs are waitlisted for ICF/MR services & filed this case in response to a proposed reduction of funds for reducing the community services wait list.
Progress Settlement

Summary Plaintiffs were resident of ICF/MR which the state wants to close. Plaintiffs contend that moving them to another ICF/MR or to a HCBS setting would violate Olmstead's 'most integrated setting' rule.
Progress Case dismissed