Free Motion for Order - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:01-cv-01871-JBA

Document 245

Filed 03/31/2005

Page 1 of 18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ARC/CONNECTICUT, ET. AL. PLAINTIFFS vs. PETER H. O'MEARA, ET AL. DEFENDANTS. : : : : : : : :

3:01CV1871 (JBA)

MARCH 30, 2005

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND FOR AN ORDER REQUIRING NOTICE TO THE CLASS AND SCHEDULING OF A FAIRNESS HEARING The parties hereby submit a Settlement Agreement as a full and final resolution of the issues raised by this lawsuit. Also enclosed is a proposed Notice to class members notifying them that the Settlement Agreement has been presented to the Court and explaining what steps they should take if they have comments or objections they would like the Court to take into consideration before it determines whether the proposed Settlement is a fair and reasonable. The parties have agreed to the content of this proposed Notice. This Motion requests that the Court issue the following orders relating to preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement and Notice to the class: 1. Issue an order indicating the Court's preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement as a fair and reasonable resolution of the dispute of the issues raised by this lawsuit; 2. Issue an order approving the content of the enclosed Notice of Settlement; 3. Issue an order requiring defendants to notify each class member of the Settlement by:

Case 3:01-cv-01871-JBA

Document 245

Filed 03/31/2005

Page 2 of 18

1) mailing a copy of the attached Notice of Settlement with the DMR Newsletter to each DMR client (and his/her parent/or guardian) who is currently enrolled in the Waiver and to each additional DMR client who was listed on the DMR Residential Waiting or Planning Lists as of October 2, 2001 or have been added to those lists at any time subsequent; and 2) publishing the attached Notice of Settlement on one occasion in the Hartford Courant, New Haven Register, Waterbury Republican, New London Day, Connecticut Post, and Stamford Advocate. 4. Issue an order requiring defendants to certify to the Court as to the manner in which the notification process was completed. 5. Issue an order scheduling a fairness hearing to determine whether the Settlement Agreement should be finally approved by the Court. A proposed order is enclosed for the Court's consideration.

PLAINTIFFS, By_/s/ David C. Shaw David C. Shaw, Esq. Fed. Bar No. ct05239 34 Jerome Ave., Suite 210 Bloomfield, CT 06002 Tel. (860) 242-1238 Email [email protected]

`

2

Case 3:01-cv-01871-JBA

Document 245

Filed 03/31/2005

Page 3 of 18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ARC/CONNECTICUT, ET. AL. PLAINTIFFS vs. PETER H. O'MEARA, ET AL. DEFENDANTS. PROPOSED ORDER The Court, after reviewing the Settlement Agreement negotiated by the parties as well as the Notice of Settlement that has been agreed upon by the parties, finds preliminarily that the Settlement Agreement is a fair and reasonable resolution of the issues raised by this lawsuit. The Court also enters the following orders relating to providing notice of the Settlement to the class and of the process through which a final determination will be made as to whether the Settlement Agreement will be approved and entered by the Court: 1. The content of the Notice of Settlement agreed to by the parties is hereby approved. 2. Defendants are ordered to notify each class member of the Settlement by: 1) mailing a copy of the attached Notice of Settlement with the DMR Newsletter to each DMR client (and his/her parent/or guardian) who is currently enrolled in the Waiver program and to each additional DMR client who was listed on the DMR Residential Waiting or Planning Lists as of October 2, 2001 or have been added to those lists at any time subsequent; and 2) publishing the attached Notice of Settlement on one occasion in the Hartford Courant, New : : : : : : : :

3:01CV1871 (JBA)

3

Case 3:01-cv-01871-JBA

Document 245

Filed 03/31/2005

Page 4 of 18

Haven Register, Waterbury Republican, New London Day, Connecticut Post, and Stamford Advocate. 3. Defendants are ordered to certify to the Court as to the manner in which the notification process was completed. The District Court will receive written comments from interested persons until May 5, 2005. Written comments should be addressed to: The Honorable Joan Margolis United States Magistrate Judge United States District Court, District of Connecticut 141 Church Street New Haven, CT 06505

A fairness hearing will be held on May 19, 2005 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2, United States District Court, 141 Church St., New Haven, Connecticut to consider comments and objections to the Settlement Agreement and to determine whether the Settlement will be approved and entered as a fair and reasonable resolution of the lawsuit for the class.

BY THE COURT,

____________________________ Hon. Janet Arterton United States District Judge

4

Case 3:01-cv-01871-JBA

Document 245

Filed 03/31/2005

Page 5 of 18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDED CITIZENS ­ CONNECTICUT, ET.AL.

: : : PLAINTIFFS : : vs. : : PETER H. O'MEARA, COMMISSIONER, : DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL RETARDATION, : AND PATRICIA WILSON-COKER, : COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL : SERVICES : : DEFENDANTS :

3:01CV1871 (JBA)

APRIL

2005

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RESOLVING PENDING CLASS ACTION

ATTENTION: CONNECTICUT CITIZENS WITH MENTAL RETARDATION, FAMILIES, GUARDIANS AND ADVOCATES The United States District Court has received a Settlement Agreement negotiated by the parties to this class action civil rights lawsuit concerning the "Waiting List" for residential placement, support, and services maintained by the Department of Mental Retardation (DMR), and the administration and operation of the "Home and Community Based Services" waiver, under Title XIX of the Medicaid Act, by the Department of Social Services (DSS) and DMR. This lawsuit was initiated by twenty-six (26) individuals, as representatives of the class, and ARC-Connecticut as an organizational representative. The lawsuit sought on behalf of the class injunctive and declaratory relief requiring the defendants DMR and DSS to provide services and supports responsive to the individual needs of DMR clients listed on the DMR Waiting and Planning Lists.

5

Case 3:01-cv-01871-JBA

Document 245

Filed 03/31/2005

Page 6 of 18

The "class" certified by the District Court is defined as follows: All individuals (1) who have been found to be eligible and remain eligible for DMR services in accordance with state law, and (2) who either (a) have applied for and are eligible for services covered by Connecticut's Home and Community Based Waiver (hereinafter referred to as "HCBW"); or (b) would apply for and be eligible for services covered by Connecticut's HCBW, if given the reasonable opportunity to apply; and (3) who cannot obtain the HCBW services for which they are presently eligible or for which they would be eligible, if given the reasonable opportunity to apply, (4) because of the policies and practices of the defendants that are prohibited by federal law. The Settlement Agreement provides a commitment of state resources, within an average cost of $50,000, which are sufficient to meet the residential placement/support/service needs of 150 individuals on the DMR "Waiting List", who are determined to have the most urgent needs, this year and each year through June 30, 2009. In addition, the settlement requires enhanced support, not less than an average of $5,000 per individual, to 100 individuals and families each year until June 30, 2009. The Settlement Agreement also requires the state to apply for a second, more flexible, waiver to meet the needs of class members and to develop policies and procedures concerning the administration of the waivers, including formal hearing processes to contest decisions regarding waiver and waiver service eligibility. Under the settlement these new policies and procedures must permit application by any person wishing to apply for the HCBS waiver, must require that individual service plans developed under the waiver be based on the needs of the disabled individual, must require that individual service plans be developed by a "team" (consisting of a DMR Case Manager or broker, an independent broker, as applicable, the individual, family and Circle of Support), must establish an individual budget negotiation process consistent with DMR cost standards and based on individual needs for each HCBS waiver recipient, must require that the DMR client may use negotiated funding to purchase services from an approved provider of his/her choice, and must require that disputes over individual budgets will be resolved through the fair hearing process. The complete text of the Settlement Agreement is posted on the DMR website (www.ct.gov/dmr) and copies may be obtained by calling the DMR Division of Legal & Government Affairs ((860) 418-6085). The Settlement Agreement was submitted by the Connecticut Attorney General to the Connecticut General Assembly for review and public hearing. The District Court will receive written comments from interested persons until May 5, 2005. Written comments should be addressed to:

6

Case 3:01-cv-01871-JBA

Document 245

Filed 03/31/2005

Page 7 of 18

The Honorable Joan G. Margolis United States Magistrate Judge United States District Court District of Connecticut 141 Church Street New Haven, CT 06505 A hearing will be held before Honorable Janet Arterton, United States District Judge, on May 19, 2005, at 10:00 a.m., United States District Court, 141 Church Street, New Haven, Connecticut, relating to the fairness of the Settlement Agreement to the class. If you have any questions about the Settlement Agreement or about the process for reviewing the fairness of the Settlement Agreement, you may contact David C. Shaw, Esq., Attorney for the Plaintiff Class, at (860) 242-1238.

SO ORDERED Janet B. Arterton United States District Judge /s/ __/__/05

7

Case 3:01-cv-01871-JBA

Document 245

Filed 03/31/2005

Page 8 of 18

Case 3:01-cv-01871-JBA

Document 245

Filed 03/31/2005

Page 9 of 18

Case 3:01-cv-01871-JBA

Document 245

Filed 03/31/2005

Page 10 of 18

Case 3:01-cv-01871-JBA

Document 245

Filed 03/31/2005

Page 11 of 18

Case 3:01-cv-01871-JBA

Document 245

Filed 03/31/2005

Page 12 of 18

Case 3:01-cv-01871-JBA

Document 245

Filed 03/31/2005

Page 13 of 18

Case 3:01-cv-01871-JBA

Document 245

Filed 03/31/2005

Page 14 of 18

Case 3:01-cv-01871-JBA

Document 245

Filed 03/31/2005

Page 15 of 18

Case 3:01-cv-01871-JBA

Document 245

Filed 03/31/2005

Page 16 of 18

Case 3:01-cv-01871-JBA

Document 245

Filed 03/31/2005

Page 17 of 18

Case 3:01-cv-01871-JBA

Document 245

Filed 03/31/2005

Page 18 of 18