Disability Rights California – Our Advocacy - Regional Office Report< Issue 58/title>  <meta name="description" content=" Protection & Advocacy, Inc. is a nonprofit disability rights organization, working since 1978 to advance human and legal rights of Californians with disabilities. We strive to create a barrier-free, inclusive society that values diversity and each individual."/> <meta name="Keywords" content=" California, disability, disability rights, disabled, disabilities, advocacy, legal service, disability law, Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, self advocacy, civil rights, abuse and neglect, special education, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA"/>  <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" /> <link href="../pai_style.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" /> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="print" href="../print_style.css" /> <link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" title="Protection & Advocacy, Inc. - Hot Topics and Disability News" href="/news.xml" /> <script language="JavaScript" type="text/JavaScript">  </script> <style type="text/css"></style> </head> <body> <div id="main_container"> <div id="header"><img src="../images/logo.jpg" alt="Protection and Advocacy Inc. - Advancing the rights of Californians with disabilities" width="587" height="70" /> </div> <div id="sub_container"> <div id="search">  <form action="../searchresults/index.htm" id="cse-search-box"> <input type="hidden" name="cx" value="014685248996379386451:roow0zyjuyy" /> <input type="hidden" name="cof" value="FORID:11" /> <input type="text" name="q" size="25" /> <input type="submit" name="sa" value="Search" /> </form> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://www.google.com/coop/cse/brand?form=cse-search-box&lang=en"></script>  </div> <div id="access_bar2"> <ul> <li><a href="#pai_main_content">skip to main content</a></li> <li><a href="../sitemap.htm">Site map</a></li> <li><a href="../access.htm">Accessibility</a></li> <li><a href="/feeds.htm"><img src="/images/rssbutton1.png" width="15" height="15" /> RSS Feeds</a></li> </ul> </div> <div id="image"><img src="../images/ban_advocacy.jpg" alt="" width="650" height="175" /></div> <div id="nav_bar"> <ul> <li class="nav_bar"><a href="../index.htm" title="Home page">Home</a> </li> <li class="nav_bar"><a href="../about/index.htm" title="About us and Contact us">About us &<br /> contact us </a> </li> <li class="nav_bar"><a href="../connect/index.htm" title="What we do">What we do</a></li> <li class="rollover_red2"><a href="../advocacy/index.htm" title="Advocacy & Cases ">Advocacy & Cases</a><ul> <li><a title="cases" href="cases.htm">Cases</a></li> <li><a title="Regional office advocacy work" href="../about/offices.htm">Regional Office Advocacy Work</a></li> <li><a title="Director of Litigation reports"href="litigation.htm">Regional Office Reports</a> </li> <li class="red">Report #58</li> <li><a href="advocacyreports.htm" title="Director of Advocacy reports">Advocacy Director Reports</a></li> <li><a href="cra_reports.htm" title="Clients' Rights reports">Clients' Rights Reports</a></li> <li><a href="pra_reports.htm" title="Patients' Rights reports">Patients' Rights Report</a>s</li> <li><a href="outreachnewsletters.htm" title="Outreach newsletters">Outreach Newsletters</a></li> </ul> </li> <li class="nav_bar"><a href="../legislature/index.htm" title="In the Legislature">in the legislature </a></li> <li class="nav_bar"><a href="../Jobs/index.htm" title="Jobs and opportunities">Jobs & opportunities</a></li> <li class="nav_bar"><a href="../news/index.htm" title="Pressroom and stories">Pressroom & Stories</a></li> <li class="nav_bar"><a href="../news/events.htm" title="Meetings and trainings">meetings & Trainings</a></li> <li class="nav_bar"><a href="../issues/index.htm" title="Resources and publications">resources & publications </a></li> </ul> <div id="quick_links"> <form method="post" action=""> <table width="100" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td><select name="menu1" class="quick_links" title="QuickLinks"> <option selected="selected">Quick Links</option> <option value="/issues/mostrequested.htm">Top 10 Publications</option> <option value="/serving/how.htm">How To Get Help</option> <option value="/connect/contact.htm">Contact Us</option> <option value="/connect/work.htm">Work For Us</option> <option value="/news/events.htm">Events & Calendar</option> </select></td> <td><input class="go" type="button" name="Button1" value="Go" onclick="MM_jumpMenuGo('menu1','parent', 0)" /> </td> </tr> </table> </form> </div> <div id="donate"> <h2><a href="../connect/donate.htm">Donate: Support PAI</a></h2> </div> </div> <div id="sub_nav"> <ul> <li><a href="../index.htm">home</a>: </li> <li class="red"> Advocacy & Cases </li> </ul> </div> <div id="main_content"> <div id="body_text"> <h1><a name="pai_main_content" id="pai_main_content"></a>Regional Office Report on Disability Rights California’s Current Advocacy: Cases and Projects</h1> <h2>Issue 58 - Work as of October 31, 2009</h2> <p>Regional Office Report - <a href="#_Toc246832125">Glossary of Selected Terms</a> - <a href="#_Toc246832126">Table of Contents</a></p> <p>This report represents a summary of the work Disability Rights California Regional Office staff has reported from August 1, 2009 to October 31, 2009. Many thanks to those who provided the material to make this report possible. </p> <h1></a><a name="_Toc246240360" id="_Toc246240360"></a><a name="_Toc246832077" id="_Toc246832077">ABUSE AND NEGLECT</a></h1> <h2><a name="_Toc246240361" id="_Toc246240361"></a><a name="_Toc246832078" id="_Toc246832078">Investigations Unit Investigates Three Recent Suicides in State Hospitals Following Disability Rights California’s Report to California Department of Mental Health Regarding Prior Suicides</a></h2> <p class="MsoNormal" style='punctuation-wrap:hanging;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric ideograph-other'>The Investigations Unit is currently investigating three suicides that occurred at two state hospitals in 2008 and 2009. These deaths followed a confidential report issued in 2007 by Disability Rights California to the California Department of Mental Health (DMH) and the US Department of Justice Civil Rights Division which chronicled the suicides of ten state hospital residents over a two year period. In those cases, Disability Rights California found that each of the residents was at risk of suicide and that staff failed to conduct thorough and timely suicide risk assessments, and failed to monitor, communicate, and document residents’ suicide potential. Disability Rights California recommended that DMH conduct more thorough and frequent assessments of residents’ suicide risk, provide enhanced monitoring of residents at risk, and conduct rigorous postmortem reviews with prompt implementation of corrective action. In January 2008, Disability Rights California staff met with DMH administrators to discuss the findings and recommendations in the report and was assured that corrective action was taking place. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">These new investigations focus on whether DMH has implemented the recommendations from the 2007 report. Preliminary findings indicate that DMH has failed to take sufficient action to remedy many of the deficiencies raised in the 2007 report. Disability Rights California’s expert found that, as with the previous suicides, hospital staff failed to conduct periodic, rigorous suicide risk assessments and adjust their treatment approach according to the resident’s risk. In one case, a resident at high risk of suicide (noted to be on suicide “alert” by the facility) received two cursory suicide assessments in more than one year without the recommended serial probative questions. There was very little notation in the medical record about his level of suicide risk and no attention to his suicidality in his wellness and recovery plan. The Investigations Unit is reviewing the expert’s findings in light of Disability Rights California’s previous recommendations, and will recommend corrective action to DMH as necessary.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Workgroup: </b><span style='font-weight:normal'>Abuse & Neglect, Goal 1, Obj. A</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Disability Rights California Staff:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Charis Moore, Paul Duryea, Leslie Morrison</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b>Grant/Funding Source(s):</b><span style='font-weight: normal'> PAIMI; Trust Fund</span></p> <h1><a name="_Toc246240362" id="_Toc246240362"></a><a name="_Toc246832079" id="_Toc246832079">BENEFITS WORKGROUP</a></h1> <h2><a name="_Toc246240363" id="_Toc246240363"></a><a name="_Toc246832080" id="_Toc246832080">Judge Prohibits In-Home Support Services (IHSS) Functional Index Cuts</a></h2> <p class="MsoNormal"><i>V.L., et al. v. Wagner, et al</i><span style='font-style: normal'>. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Case No. CV 09-04668 CW, Federal District Court Northern District of Calif., Judge Claudia Wilken, filed October 1, 2009</p> <p class="MsoNormal">On October 1, 2009, Disability Rights California, four other public interest law firms and two private firms filed a class action complaint in federal district court in San Francisco, challenging the state’s plan to cut In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) benefits to an estimated 130,000 Californians. These changes were mandated by ABX4 4, part of the package budget cuts passed by the Legislature last summer. These cuts in IHSS were based on recipients’ “functional index” (FI) ranks and scores, a measure developed only for quality assurance purposes that had never before used to determine eligibility. Effective November 1, 2009, the state planned to terminate all IHSS services to approximately 40,000 recipients because they had an FI score of below 2, and to eliminate all domestic and related services for IHSS recipients with FI ranks below 4 in these areas. In the lawsuit, IHSS recipients were represented by Disability Rights California, the National Senior Citizen’s Law Center, Disability Rights Legal Center, the National Health Law Program and the firm of Charles Wolfinger. The lawsuit also included as plaintiffs the SEIU unions that represent IHSS providers, represented by Altshuler Berzon LLP.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">On October 6, 2009, Disability Rights California and our co-counsel filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and for class certification. In support of these motions, the plaintiffs submitted declarations from the five named plaintiffs, dozens of other affected IHSS recipients, local officials from six California counties, five experts including nationally renown researchers from universities across the country, and dozens of agency directors and stakeholders. Plaintiffs asked for a motion on shortened time to ensure that the injunction would issue in time to stop the state from mailing out termination and reduction notices, which were scheduled to be sent on October 20, 2009. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">While the motions were pending, we learned that the state planned to mail the termination notices early, starting at midnight on October 15, 2009. On only a few hours notice, plaintiffs filed a request for an emergency Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to stop the notices. Judge Wilken granted the emergency TRO that evening, just a few hours before the mailing was to begin. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">After a hearing on October 19, 2009, Judge Claudia Wilken granted the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, and then issued a 31 page written order on October 23, 2009. Judge Wilken considered the “human suffering” that would have resulted found that “the increase in more expensive hospitalization and institutionalization of needy disabled and elderly people will likely outweigh the short-term savings.” She also found that a functional index was a “complicated mathematical formula devised years ago, which was not designed, and has never been used, to measure an individual’s need for care.” The Court concluded that the cuts based on this index likely violated federal law, specifically, constitutional due process, three provisions of the federal Medicaid Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Judge Wilken ordered the state to send a notice to all affected recipients informing them of her order, which is also posted on the CDSS’ website: <a href="http://www.cdss.ca.gov/cdssweb/entres/pdf/VL_et_al_v_Wagner.pdf">http://www.cdss.ca.gov/cdssweb/entres/pdf/VL_et_al_v_Wagner.pdf</a></p> <p class="MsoNormal">By the time the Court issued its Preliminary Injunction stopping the cuts, the state had already re-programmed its IHSS computer system to terminate and reduce benefits, so it directed the counties to manually restore all 120,000 files to their previous status. By November 2, 2009, most files had been updated, but more than 4000 had not been changed. Since counties began issuing timecards on November 6, 2009, the providers for these 4000 were likely to stop working or reduce their hours. Consequently, we filed a motion for contempt on November 10, 2009, seeking fines of $250,000 per day for each day that recipient files were not corrected. A hearing on the contempt motion is set for November 19, 2009. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Benefits:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Goal 3, Obj. A.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Discrimination:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Goal 1, Obj. A.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Disability Rights California Staff:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Melinda Bird, Bernadette Bautista, Sujatha Branch, Deborah Dorfman, Elissa Gershon, Marilyn Holle, Maria Iriarte, Ann Menasche, Fred Nisen, Jung Pham, Taymour Ravandi, Rachel Scherer, Dara Schur, Kim Swain, and many other staff.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Outside Counsel:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Paula Pearlman and Shawna Parks, Disability Rights Legal Center; Charles Wolfinger, Law Office of Charles Wolfinger; Jane Perkins and Anna Rich, National Health Law Program, representing the individual plaintiffs and the class. We are also working with Stephen P. Berzon, Eve H. Cervantez, Stacey M. Leyton, and Peder J. Thoreen of Altshuler Berzon LLP, representing the unions.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Grant/Funding Sources: </b><span style='font-weight:normal'>PAIR/PAIMI.</span> </p> <h2><a name="_Toc246832081" id="_Toc246832081">Lawsuit Filed Against State to Ensure that People Receiving In-Home Supportive Services Get Required Notice</a></h2> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;punctuation-wrap: hanging;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric ideograph-other'><b><i>Northern California ADAPT (Bay Area), et al. v. California Department of Social Services, et al.</i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;punctuation-wrap: hanging;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric ideograph-other'><b><i> </i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Case No. CPF-09-509912, San Francisco Superior Court, filed October 19, 2009.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">On October 19, 2009, Disability Rights California, along with a consortium of legal aid, public interest, disability rights organizations and a private law firm filed a lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court to stop the state from implementing a new state law reducing benefits to certain IHSS recipients. The change would force 10,000 indigent, frail, disabled and elderly people to pay an additional $250 per month toward the personal care services they receive from the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS). We alleged that these cuts cannot be implemented without adequate notice, which the state has failed to provide. The cuts are expected to take effect in early November.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">IHSS services help the frail elderly and disabled remain safely in their own home by providing personal attendant services to help them do their shopping, laundry, meal preparation, dressing, bathing, and even provide for transportation to the doctor. Officials at the state contend that they only need to send a notice out ten days in advance to recipients. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">The Department of Social Services (DSS) sent a “notice” on September 16, 2009; however, a readability expert determined that the notice was at both an 11<sup>th</sup> grade reading level and also at college level, and was incomprehensible. The letter was printed in a difficult-to-read font and incorrectly told recipients they could not appeal the notice even if they received it by mistake. The notice violates the requirements in state law concerning the adequacy of notices which must be sent to recipients facing a reduction in their benefits. In addition, the state sent notices only in English, violating state law.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Plaintiffs sought a Temporary Restraining Order stopping the cuts but it was denied. A motion for a Preliminary Injunction stopping the cuts will be heard on November 30, 2009. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles (LAFLA), Western Center on Law and Poverty, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, and Disability Rights Legal Center initiated this challenge, along with Disability Rights California.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Benefits:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Goal 3, Obj. A.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Discrimination:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Goal 1, Obj. A.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Disability Rights California Staff:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Marilyn Holle.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Other Counsel:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, Western Center on Law and Poverty, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, and Disability Rights Legal Center.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Grant/Funding Source(s):</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> PAAT, PADD, and PAIMI.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'> </p> <h2><a name="_Toc246240364" id="_Toc246240364"></a><a name="_Toc246832082" id="_Toc246832082">Judge Halts Cuts to the Adult Day Health Care Program</a></h2> <p class="Cases" style='margin-bottom:14.0pt'><span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Lillie Brantley et al. v. David Maxwell-Jolly, Department of Health Care Services. </span></p> <h3><em><span style='text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'>Case No. C-09-03798, Federal District Court, Northern District of Calif., Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong. Cite as 2009 WL 2941519 (N.D. Cal.) </span></em></h3> <p class="MsoNormal" style='punctuation-wrap:hanging'>On August 18, 2009, Disability Rights California, along with co-counsel AARP Foundation Litigation, National Senior Citizens Law Center, and the National Health Law Project, filed a class action lawsuit to stop devastating cuts to Adult Day Health Care (ADHC) services. ADHC is a Medi-Cal funded community-based program for low income seniors and younger disabled adults that provides a variety of services, including therapeutic, social, and skilled nursing services designed to maintain individuals in their own homes and to avoid institutionalization. Approximately 37,000 Californians across the state participate in the program. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='punctuation-wrap:hanging'>ABx4 5, one of a number of bills enacted in response to California’s budget crisis this past summer, cut the maximum number of days an individual could receive ADHC services from five to three days per week regardless of their need for the services. <span style='color:black'>In addition, the bill imposed new restrictions limiting eligibility for ADHC services which were to go into effect when the Director of the California Department of Health Care Services provided a written declaration that the new restrictions were ready for implementation. At that point, the ADHC benefit would return to being available five days per week, but new restrictions would also be in place.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='punctuation-wrap:hanging'>On behalf of three named plaintiffs, and putative class members, all of whom receive ADHC services 4 or 5 days per week, Disability Rights California and its co-counsel argued that the reduction in days contained in ABx4 5 would place as many as 8,000 recipients at immediate risk of institutionalization, hospitalization, injury or death if implemented. Plaintiffs’ legal claims as to both the reduction in days and the new restrictions on eligibility included violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; violation of procedural due process under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and the Medicaid Act; and violation of the Medicaid Act’s Comparability requirement. Plaintiffs filed a preliminary injunction motion, only as to the reduction in days, on August 26, 2009. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='punctuation-wrap:hanging'>On September 10, 2009, in a major victory for Plaintiffs, Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, and stopped the implementation of the reduction in days of the program. Judge Armstrong ordered that Defendants are enjoined and restrained from cutting benefits to Plaintiffs and putative class members, “unless and until appropriate alternative Medi-Cal services are provided to prevent inappropriate institutionalization in violation of their rights under the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.” In finding that the Plaintiffs had shown irreparable harm, the Judge, in her Order, noted: </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-left:.5in;punctuation-wrap:hanging'>The harm in this instance is particularly irreparable and imminent. The ADHC cuts are scheduled to take effect immediately, at which time Plaintiffs and putative Class Members will immediately have their services significantly reduced. As discussed, these services are necessary and critical to Plaintiffs’ physical and mental well-being. Given the tenuousness and complexities of their conditions, an interruption in their care, even if temporary, will have serious consequences for Plaintiffs. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='punctuation-wrap:hanging'>Named plaintiffs and their families, and ADHC participants across the state were thrilled with the result in Judge Armstrong’s ruling. Phase 2 of the cuts is scheduled to go into effect in early 2010, and Plaintiffs are preparing to seek orders stopping those cuts as well. A case management conference is scheduled for December 3, 2009, at which time a trial schedule will be set by Judge Armstrong. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Benefits: </b><span style='font-weight:normal'>Goal 2, Obj. A; Goal 3, Obj. A.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Discrimination:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Goal 1, Obj. A.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Disability Rights California Staff:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Elissa Gershon, Jay Koslofsky, Dara Schur, Kim Swain, Elizabeth Zirker, Dan Brzovic.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Other Counsel:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> AARP Foundation Litigation, National Senior Citizens Law Center, National Health Law Project.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Grant/Funding Source(s):</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> PAIR/PAIMI.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'> </p> <h2><a name="_Toc246240365" id="_Toc246240365"></a><a name="_Toc246832083" id="_Toc246832083">P.D. Found Eligible for SSI Back to October 2003</a></h2> <p class="MsoNormal">P.D. is a young man with psychiatric disabilities, learning disabilities, mild mental retardation and acute asthma. P.D. had been found eligible as a child for SSI benefits, but when he turned 18 was found not to meet the adult disability standard. P.D. reapplied for benefits repeatedly and each time he was denied. After the last denial, P.D. asked for a hearing. At that hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that illegal drug use was material to his disability and denied his appeal. P.D. appealed to the Appeals Council and the issue was remanded for a de novo hearing. Disability Rights California represented P.D. at this hearing. Disability Rights California hired a neuropsychologist who testified to the severity of P.D.’s impairments and that his past experimentation with drugs was not related to his disability. At the hearing, Social Security’s “impartial medical expert” concurred with the neuropsychologist and added testimony of his own in support of P.D.’s disability claim. P.D. was found disabled and eligible for SSI going back to October 2003.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;tab-stops: list .25in;punctuation-wrap:hanging;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric ideograph-other'><b>Benefits: </b><span style='font-weight:normal'>Goal 1, Obj. A.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;tab-stops: list .25in;punctuation-wrap:hanging;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric ideograph-other'><b>Disability Rights California Staff:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Ann Coller<i>, </i></span>Suzanna Gee.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;punctuation-wrap: hanging;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric ideograph-other'><b>Grant/Funding Source(s):</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> PAIMI.</span> </p> <h2><a name="_Toc246240366" id="_Toc246240366"></a><a name="_Toc246832084" id="_Toc246832084">Disability Rights California Helps Client Obtain Repairs to Wheelchair</a></h2> <p class="MsoNormal">D.R. is a 37 year-old African American with quadriplegia. D.R. lives in the community with supports and services and uses a wheelchair. D.R.’s wheelchair needed repairs to make it useable but the vendor he purchased the wheelchair from was ignoring his requests for repairs even after agreeing to make them. The vendor also refused to go to D.R.’s home to repair the wheelchair. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">Taking the wheelchair to the vendor meant risking injury and/or experiencing pain. Disability Rights California successfully advocated on behalf of D.R. by informing the vendor of its responsibility to repair the wheelchair. The vendor agreed go to D.R.’s home and make the necessary repairs.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Benefits:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Goal 3, Obj. A. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Discrimination:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Goal 1, Obj. A.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Disability Rights California Staff:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Crystal Padilla.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b>Grant/Funding Source(s):</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> PAIR.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'> </p> <h2><a name="_Toc246240367" id="_Toc246240367"></a><a name="_Toc246832085" id="_Toc246832085">J.B. Obtains Communication Assistive Technology Device Through California Children’s Services (CCS)</a></h2> <p class="MsoNormal">Twelve year old J.B. has cerebral palsy and uses a walker. J.B. is a Regional Center client and receives special education services through his school district. Due to J.B.’s increased fine motor skills, he was able to effectively use a hand-held communication device provided as a result of the school’s assessment, however, the school district only allowed J.B. to use the device while at school. J.B.’s mother sought assistance from Disability Rights California in obtaining a new communication device for J.B. to use while at home and on the bus to practice his communication skills after California Children’s Services (CCS) denied her request for a new device. CCS denied the request because the family had private insurance that could cover the device and the fact that CCS had funded the old device three years ago and thus, asserted that funding new one would violate rules regarding the frequency of such devices. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">Although both the Regional Center and school district were legally obligated to provide the device to meet J.B.’s education and communication goals, Disability Rights California appealed the CCS denial so that if successful, J.B. would own the device and have unlimited access to it. Based upon federal medically necessary EPSDT standards and laws and regulations applicable to CCS services, Disability Rights California prepared a position statement and filed it with the appeal. Prior to the hearing, the case settled with CCS agreeing to authorize the hand-held communication device and pay any residual co-payments or deductibles amounts for the device after private insurer paid the portion that it was responsible. CCS also provided the case management necessary to handle the actual receipt of the device by J.B.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Benefits:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Goal 2, Obj. A. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Disability Rights California Staff:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Debra Marley, Marilyn Holle. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Other Counsel:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> N/A.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b>Grant/Funding Source(s):</b><span style='font-weight: normal'> PAAT.</span></p> <h2><a name="_Toc246240368" id="_Toc246240368"></a><a name="_Toc246832086" id="_Toc246832086">Court Approved Class Settlement in Martinez, the “Fleeing Felons” Case.</a></h2> <p class="Cases"><span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Martinez, et al. v. Astrue, et al.</span></p> <p class="Cases"><span style='font-style:normal'>Case No. 08-CV-4735 CW., <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">United States District Court, Northern District of California, Judge Claudia Wilken</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal">On September 24, 2009, the Honorable Claudia Wilken, United States District Court Judge for the Northern District of California, approved the nationwide class action settlement in <i>Martinez v. Astrue.</i><span style='font-style:normal'> The class includes approximately two hundred thousand people whose Social Security Insurance (SSI) or Social Security Title II benefits were suspended or denied since January 1, 2000, because they were presumed to be “fleeing felons” solely on the basis of the existence of a warrant. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Class members are potentially eligible for varying amounts of back benefits. About 80,000 are eligible for full retroactive reinstatement and benefits worth over $500 million. Since California has at least 10% of the national population, 10% of the settlement’s benefits will go to Californians. See the Disability Rights California and other websites for more information about the <i>Martinez</i><span style='font-style:normal'> fleeing felon case and settlement: <a href="http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/advocacy/Martinez_v_Astrue/index.htm">http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/advocacy/Martinez_v_Astrue/index.htm</a>, </span><a href="http://www.ssa.gov/martinezsettlement/">http://www.ssa.gov/martinezsettlement/</a> and <a href="http://www.nsclc.org/front-page/areas/social-security-ssi/Martinez-Settlement">http://www.nsclc.org/front-page/areas/social-security-ssi/Martinez-Settlement</a></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The lawsuit challenged the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) illegal implementation of the “Fleeing Felon” law that was first adopted in 1996 by Congress to stop SSI recipients and applicants from using SSI benefits if there was a determination that the person was “fleeing” to avoid arrest. The law said no benefits could be paid for any period when a person was “fleeing to avoid prosecution” or “to avoid … custody or confinement after conviction” for a felony. 42 U.S.C. § 1382(e)(4)(A). The SSA issued regulations saying benefits would only be denied or suspended “on the basis of an appropriate finding” that the individual is in fact “fleeing.” </p> <p class="MsoNormal">When the SSA began implementing the program in 2000, it established a <i>de facto</i><span style='font-style:normal'> policy of suspending or denying benefits solely on the basis of the existence of a warrant even though the notice language tracked the statute and regulations on the “fleeing” requirement. In 2004 Congress extended the “fleeing” provision to Social Security Title II beneficiaries. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Additionally, as a result of litigation at the time, courts held that there must be a determination of the term “fleeing” and that SSA’s policy was illegal. As a result of these decisions, the SSA removed the reference to the statutory and regulatory “fleeing” standard in the notices, which discouraged people who had a basis for appeal from doing so. Social Security never appealed any of the cases it lost in district court. When one case made it to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on a fluke (<i>Fowlkes v. Adamec), </i><span style='font-style:normal'>Social Security issued an “Acquiescence Ruling” saying it would follow the decision only in the Second Circuit. It was clear that the SSA’s policy would not be changed through individual suits. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal">In October of 2008, Disability Rights California joined the National Senior Citizens Law Center, Munger Tolles & Olson, the Urban Justice Center and the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County in filing suit. Plaintiffs included a woman who was a SSI recipient with multiple disabilities and a common name. The SSA tried to stop her benefits because decades ago another woman with the same name who was eight inches taller got a warrant in Miami while the plaintiff was pregnant and living in Chicago under her married name. Also included was J. H., a Regional Center client whose benefits were stopped because of a warrant issued in another state when he was 12 years old and which he could not remember. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">The centerpiece of the settlement is that, with the exception of warrants issued on charges of escape or flight, a warrant will no longer automatically trigger denial or suspension of SSI, Title II or Special Veterans Benefits (SVB) or trigger denial or suspension of representative payee status. Further, while the parties were still negotiating the settlement, the SSA agreed to end its illegal policy as of April 1, 2009, so that as of that date people no longer were being denied benefits or having their benefits suspended.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-.5in'><b>Benefits:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Goal 1, Obj. A.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-.5in'><b>Disability Rights California Staff:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Marilyn Holle, Tim Poe.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Other Counsel:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Gerald McIntyre (lead), Anna Rich, Kevin Prindiville, National Senior Citizens Law Center; David Fry, Mark R. Conrad, Jeremy S. Kroger, Munger, Tolles & Olson, LLP, San Francisco; Emilia Sicilia, Jennifer Parish, Urban Justice Center, New York: Christopher A. Douglas, Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.5in'><b>Grant/Funding Source(s):</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> PADD, PAIMI, and PAIR.</span></p> <h2><a name="_Toc246240369" id="_Toc246240369"></a><a name="_Toc246832087" id="_Toc246832087">One-Year-Old Moved from Early Start to Regional Center Eligibility and Qualified for Medi-Cal through DD Waiver</a></h2> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-left:45.0pt;text-indent:-45.0pt'>A similar case was reported on in ROR #54, page 10.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Disability Rights California was contacted by a mother of a child, C.B., in obtaining Regional Center services under the Home and Community Based Services Waiver (DD Waiver). C.B. has a low incidence congenital disability, and access to health care is essential because of his complex care needs. Because C.B.’s health care coverage through the mother’s former employer was terminating, C.B. needed institutional deeming under the DD Waiver for Regional Center clients who otherwise would qualify for care in one of the categories of ICF/DD (intermediate care facilities/ developmentally disabled) facilities. With institutional deeming, C.B. would qualify for Medi-Cal because his financial eligibility would be determined as if he were in a medical facility – that is, without regard to his parents’ income and resources and looking only to his own nonexistent income. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">At the time, C.B. was under the age of three and was enrolled in the Early Start program at the Regional Center. His Regional Center eligibility had not yet been determined. Because of her impending insurance termination, the mother requested that the Regional Center determine C.B.’s Regional Center eligibility so that he could obtained DD Waiver services. The Regional Center refused, insisting that C.B. remain in Early Start until age three and that his Regional Center eligibility could not be determined prior to age three. Thus, C.B. could not be considered for DD waiver services until age three, assuming he was found eligible for Regional Center services. Disability Rights California represented the mother in an appeal. In doing so, Disability Rights California contacted the Division of Developmental Services and immediately started working with the Regional Center to reach a settlement. Following a developmental assessment, the Regional Center and DDS agreed that C.B. met the Regional Center eligibility criteria. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">The State then determined C.B. did not meet the medical criteria for admission to an ICF/DD per the criteria in Appendix 2 of the DDS Waiver Policy Manual and 22 CCR § 51343.2(e). To establish that if placed out of the home, C.B. would require developmental and habilitative program services in a setting with intermittent nursing care and ongoing nurse supervision, the mother submitted detailed descriptions regarding the requisite care regimens for C.B.’s conditions. Additionally, C.B.’s treating physicians reviewed these descriptions and wrote letters to DDS on behalf of C.B. concurring with his mother’s descriptions of his care needs. With this additional medical evidence, DDS agreed that C.B. met the eligibility requirements for DD waiver services. C.B. now qualifies for Medi-Cal. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:45.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-45.0pt'><b>Lanterman</b><span style='font-weight:normal'>: Goal 3, Obj. A.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:45.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-45.0pt'><b>Benefits:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Goal 2, Obj. A.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent: -45.0pt'> <b>Disability Rights California Staff:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Marilyn Holle and Tim Poe, Connie Huang.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-left:45.35pt;text-indent:-45.35pt'><b>Grant/Funding Source(s):</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> PADD.</span></p> <h2><a name="_Toc246832088" id="_Toc246832088">Disability Rights California Joins other Amici in Signing on to an Amicus Curiae Letter Seeking California Supreme Court Review of the Adverse Appellate Decision in <i>Watkins, et al, v. County of Alameda, et al.</i></a></h2> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-left:1.6pt;punctuation-wrap:hanging; text-autospace:ideograph-numeric ideograph-other'><i>Watkins, et al. v. County of Alameda, et al.</i><span style='font-style:normal'> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='tab-stops:list 0in'>California Supreme Court No. S177058; <span style='letter-spacing:-.15pt'><i>Amicus Curiae</i></span><span style='letter-spacing:-.15pt'> Letter in Support of Publication.</span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:14.0pt; margin-left:0in'>Disability Rights California, represented by Thomas V. Loran III, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, joins other amici Disability Rights Advocates, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, National Employment Law Project, and The Legal Aid Society – Employment Law Center in signing on to an Amicus Curiae Letter seeking California Supreme Court review of the adverse appellate decision in <i>Watkins, et al, v. County of Alameda, et al., </i><span style='font-style:normal'>California Supreme Court No. S177058.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><u>Summary of Amicis</u></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The Amici are five disability rights organizations involved in service to persons with disabilities in California and concerned with the laws prohibiting disability-based discrimination. If successful, this case will impact thousands of indigent residents of Alameda County, a large number of whom are people with disabilities.</p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:14.0pt; margin-left:0in'>In the appellate decision in <i>Watkins v. County of Alameda,</i><span style='font-style:normal'> the First Appellate District upheld Alameda County’s provisions barring individuals from receiving general assistance benefits for more than six months unless they met an extremely restrictive definition of “unemployability.” As a strong dissenting opinion pointed out, the decision “permits the county to terminate the last vestige of relief to thousands of indigent who cannot find work and have no other source of sustenance.”</span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:14.0pt; margin-left:0in'>Disability Rights California and other amici seek review of this decision by the California Supreme Court because it misinterprets the applicable laws, particularly discrimination laws and their effect on the meaning of the word “employable.”</p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:14.0pt; margin-left:0in'>Amici argue that the decision wrongfully conflates “disability” with “unemployability” without considering many other factors. Such an interpretation is not supported by the history and structure of disability discrimination laws, which require, among other things, distinct consideration, based on the particular statute, of the specific nature of the disability, the practical and legal availability of reasonable accommodations, and the nature of the available employment.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:45.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-45.0pt'><b>Discrimination</b><span style='font-weight:normal'>: Goal 3, Obj. A.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Disability Rights California Staff:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Stuart Seaborn, Sacramento Senior Attorney (lead).</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Counsel for Disability Rights California: </b><span style='font-weight:normal'>Thomas V. Loran III, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Other Amici: </b><span style='font-weight:normal'>Disability Rights Advocates; Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund; <span lang="en" xml:lang="en">National Employment Law Project; the </span>Legal Aid Society – Employment Law Center.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b>Grant/Funding Source(s):</b><span style='font-weight: normal'> PAIMI, PAIR, and PADD.</span></p> <h1><a name="_Toc246240370" id="_Toc246240370"></a><a name="_Toc246832089" id="_Toc246832089">DISCRIMINATION WORKGROUP</a></h1> <h2><a name="_Toc246240371" id="_Toc246240371"></a><a name="_Toc246832090" id="_Toc246832090">Disability Rights California Joins Legal Services of Northern California in Litigation Attempting to Restore Accessible Features in an Apartment Occupied by a Person who Uses a Wheelchair</a></h2> <p class="MsoNormal">A woman whose disabilities require her to use a motorized wheelchair and the services of a live-in caregiver contacted Legal Services of Northern California after her landlord remodeled her apartment. The remodel resulted in the removal of certain accessible features including the removal of a roll-in shower and a replacement with a shower that has a six-inch lip, making it impossible for the woman to enter the shower in her wheelchair. The apartment is the downstairs unit in what had been the client’s family home prior the sale of the home as a part of a probate settlement. The settlement gave the client the equivalent of a lifetime lease in the apartment. The remodeling by the landlord coincided with eviction proceedings and other landlord/tenant disputes initiated by the landlord against the woman. Since that time, the landlord has filed ejectment and breach of contract claims against the woman in an effort to remove her from the apartment and free the landlord from the terms of the lifetime lease, which includes a below-market rental rate tied closely to the client’s social security disability income. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">Disability Rights California has joined Legal Services of Northern California in the defense of the breach of contract and ejectment claims filed against the client and, together, both agencies are in the process of filing a Cross-Complaint under the state and federal fair housing laws asking the court to require that the landlord restore the accessible features of the apartment. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;tab-stops: 1.0in'><b>Discrimination Goal & Objective: </b><span style='font-weight: normal'>Goal 2, Obj. A.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;tab-stops: 1.0in'><b>Disability Rights California Staff:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Jay Kozlofsky and Stuart Seaborn.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;tab-stops: 1.0in'><b>Co-Counsel: </b><span style='font-weight:normal'>Herb Whitaker, Sotivear Sim of Legal Services of Northern California.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='tab-stops:1.0in'><b>Grant(s)/Funding Source(s): </b><span style='font-weight:normal'>PAIR.</span></p> <h2><a name="_Toc246240372" id="_Toc246240372"> </a><a name="_Toc246832091" id="_Toc246832091">Disability Rights California Brings Lawsuit to Stop Sacramento County Jail from Restraining All Inmates and Pre-Trial Detainees Who Receive Dialysis Treatments</a></h2> <p class="Cases"><span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Stringfellow, et al. v. McGinness, et al.</span></p> <p class="Style0"><em>Case No. 34-2009-80000335; Sacramento County Superior Court, filed September 25, 2009.</em> </p> <p class="Style0" style='margin-bottom:14.0pt'><span >Disability Rights California filed a lawsuit in Sacramento County Superior Court on September 25, 2009 to stop the Sacramento County Jail’s blanket policy of restraining all inmates and pre-trial detainees while they receive dialysis treatment. The restraint system includes both waist and wrist restraints, leaving inmates with little ability to move during treatments that last up to four and a half hours – and placing them at risk of harm in the event of emergency. The Jail’s restraint policy applies to even the most non-violent inmates. The lawsuit raises causes of action involving state regulatory violation, state constitutional violations and state discrimination statute violations. The case is currently being litigated.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;tab-stops: 1.0in'><b>Discrimination</b><span style='font-weight:normal'>: Goal 3, Obj. A.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;tab-stops: 1.0in'><b>Disability Rights California Staff:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Jay Koslofsky, Stuart Seaborn, Sean Rashkis, Laura Reich, Lori Miller, Norma Lianci.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='tab-stops:1.0in'><b>Grant(s)/Funding Source(s): </b><span style='font-weight:normal'>PAIR/PAIMI.</span></p> <h2><a name="_Toc246240373" id="_Toc246240373"></a><a name="_Toc246832092" id="_Toc246832092">Disability Rights California Assists Client in Obtaining Service Dog Documentation from Psychiatrist</a></h2> <p class="MsoNormal">K.C. has a mental disability and has self-trained a psychiatric service dog to provide him with needed assistance and support. He was experiencing problems getting access to places of public accommodation because people were skeptical that the dog was a service dog since K.C. did not have a physical disability. K.C. approached his psychiatrist for a letter and she refused to support his need for a service dog. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">Disability Rights California provided information to K.C. on psychiatric service dogs and spoke to the client’s psychiatrist at length about his need for the service animal. At the end of the conversation, the psychiatrist still seemed resistant to providing the needed documentation. However, the next time K.C. spoke to the psychiatrist, she had reconsidered her position and agreed to provide the letter.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;tab-stops: 1.0in'><b>Discrimination</b><span style='font-weight:normal'>: Goal 3, Obj. A.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;tab-stops: 1.0in'><b>Disability Rights California Staff:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Ann Menasche.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='tab-stops:1.0in'><b>Grant(s)/Funding Source(s): </b><span style='font-weight:normal'>PAIMI.</span></p> <h2><a name="_Toc246240374" id="_Toc246240374"></a><a name="_Toc246832093" id="_Toc246832093">Settlement Conference Held in Service Dog Case against Kaiser as Parties Move Closer to Settlement</a></h2> <p class="Cases"><span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Michalek v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan et al. </span></p> <p class="Cases"><em><span style='font-style:normal' lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Case # 09CV-0488 W POR, United States District Court, Southern District.</span></em> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">See prior ROR, No. 57.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">On October 19, 2009, Disability Rights California and attorneys for Kaiser met with U.S. Magistrate Judge Porter to negotiate the details of a new, stronger service dog policy for Kaiser. The case was filed in March 2009 under Title III of the ADA in response to an incident in which plaintiff’s service dog was ejected from the hospital. Settlement negotiations are continuing.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;tab-stops: 1.0in'><b>Discrimination</b><span style='font-weight:normal'>: Goal 2, Obj. A.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;tab-stops: 1.0in'><b>Disability Rights California Staff: </b><span style='font-weight: normal'>Ann Menasche, Bernadette Bautista, Maria Iriarte.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='tab-stops:1.0in'><b>Grant(s)/Funding Source(s): </b><span style='font-weight:normal'>PAIMI.</span></p> <h2><a name="_Toc246240375" id="_Toc246240375"></a><a name="_Toc246832094" id="_Toc246832094">Disability Rights California Assists County Nurse to be Allowed to Use Her Service Dog at Hospital where She Works</a></h2> <p class="MsoNormal" style='tab-stops:1.0in'>Disability Rights California was contacted for assistance by S.B., who has hypoglycemia and diabetes. S.B. has a specially trained service dog which alerts her to potentially dangerous fluctuations in her blood sugar levels. S.B. is a registered nurse and works for a county. As part of her employment, she has to go to the county hospital three times each month, for a half-day each time. While at the county hospital, S.B. works in the out-patient clinics and does not go near the operating room. The hospital would not allow service dogs on the premises. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='tab-stops:1.0in'>After repeated phone calls to the hospital’s ADA/504 coordinator, Disability Rights California was able to successfully advocate for approval of S.B.’s request to have her service dog on the hospital premises.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;tab-stops: 1.0in'><b>Discrimination</b><span style='font-weight:normal'>: Goal 2, Obj. A.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;tab-stops: 1.0in'><b>Disability Rights California Staff: </b><span style='font-weight: normal'>Bill Hershon, Fred Nisen.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='tab-stops:1.0in'><b>Grant(s)/Funding Source(s): </b><span style='font-weight:normal'>PAIR.</span></p> <h2><a name="_Toc246240376" id="_Toc246240376"></a><a name="_Toc246832095" id="_Toc246832095">Settlement Allows a Student with Autism to Participate in Exchange Program</a></h2> <p class="MsoNormal">Disability Rights California filed an action in the U.S. District Court on behalf of a student with a diagnosis of autism against a school district, alleging discrimination on the basis of his disability in the provision of the German American Partnership Program (GAPP), a student exchange program available to his similarly situated peers who do not have disabilities. The GAPP student exchange program is a school-to-school partnership which promotes the exchange of German and American students to foster the study of foreign languages and increase intercultural awareness and understanding. The GAPP receives assistance from the U.S. State Department with the goal of building a cultural bridge between the two countries and provides that “<span lang="en" xml:lang="en">implementation of the program is solely the responsibility of the school administration.” </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal">N.S. wanted the opportunity to participate in the program to the same extent that his similarly-situated peers who do not have disabilities were able to participate in the program. Although N.S. had taken German for all four years at his high school, the District felt that characteristics of his autism, including resistance to change, would be too problematic for the chaperone and the German school to manage.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">The complaint alleged that <span lang="en" xml:lang="en">the District’s failure to allow </span>N.S. <span lang="en" xml:lang="en">to participate in the GAPP with or without reasonable accommodations is a violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. </span>42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12134 (as amended 2008); Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. 29 U.S.C. §§ 794 (West 2009) and the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Cal. Civil Code Ann. §§ 51-52 (West 2009). </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="en" xml:lang="en">The case settled. As a result of the settlement, the District allowed </span>N.S. <span lang="en" xml:lang="en">to participate in the GAPP program, travel to Germany, live with a host German family, attend the </span>Privatgymnasium in Kelkheim, Germany<span lang="en" xml:lang="en"> and underwrote the expenses for </span>N.S.<span lang="en" xml:lang="en">’s mother to serve as his aide.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;tab-stops: 1.0in'><b>Discrimination:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Goal 3, Obj. A.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;tab-stops: 1.0in'><b>Disability Rights California Staff: </b><span style='font-weight: normal'>Barbara Ransom, Jay Kozlofsky, Stuart Seaborn.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='tab-stops:1.0in'><b>Grant(s)/Funding Source(s): </b><span style='font-weight:normal'>PADD.</span></p> <h2><a name="_Toc246240377" id="_Toc246240377"></a><a name="_Toc246832096" id="_Toc246832096">Disability Rights California helps Client Obtain Repairs to his Wheelchair</a></h2> <h2><a name="_Toc246240378" id="_Toc246240378"></a><a name="_Toc246832097" id="_Toc246832097"><span style='font-family: Arial;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none;font-weight:normal'><i>See “Disability Rights California Helps Client Obtain Repairs to Wheelchair”, page 7.</i></span></a></h2> <h2><a name="_Toc246832098" id="_Toc246832098">Disability Rights California Files a Successful Amicus Request for Publication of Important Employment Discrimination Appeal.</a></h2> <p class="MsoNormal"><i>A.M. v. Albertsons LLC</i></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Case No. A122307, <span style='letter-spacing:-.15pt'><i>Amicus Curiae</i></span><span style='letter-spacing:-.15pt'> Letter in Support of Publication of Opinion, </span>California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, <span style='letter-spacing:-.15pt'>filed </span>September 18, 2009.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Disability Rights California joined The Legal Aid Society - Employment Law Center, Disability Rights Advocates, and the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund in signing on to a <i>Amicus Curiae </i><span style='font-style:normal'>Letter in Support of Publication of the appellate decision in </span><i>A.M. v. Albertsons LLC</i><span style='font-style:normal'>, No. 122307 (Sept. 18, 2009).</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The <i>A.M. v. Albertson’s LLC</i><span style='font-style: normal'> case clarifies that employers cannot rely on their prior participation in the interactive process to avoid liability for a single significant failure to accommodate. This case was brought by a private attorney on behalf of plaintiff A.M., who worked for Albertsons and was later diagnosed with cancer of the tonsils and larynx. To treat her condition, A.M. underwent radiation and chemotherapy. Receiving a diagnosis of cancer is itself traumatic. Upon her return to work, she sought and was granted the accommodations she needed. However, an incident where she was not granted her accommodation was severely traumatic and triggered great emotional distress that continued for months. </span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText2" style='margin-bottom:14.0pt;line-height:normal'>The jury ruled in favor of A.M. on her claim that the defendant failed to accommodate her in violation of Government Code section 12940(m), and awarded her $200,000 in damages. </p> <p class="MsoBodyText2" style='margin-bottom:14.0pt;line-height:normal'>The amicus letter requested that the Court publish its opinion for its thoughtful discussion of trauma in the context of a plaintiff alleging disability discrimination, for its clarification that liability can exist under section 12940(m) for a single traumatic incident, and for its rejection of the defendant’s unsupported theory that under 12940(n) the plaintiff was herself responsible for the injuries she incurred. In response to the letter, the Court published its opinion.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Discrimination:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Goal 3.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;tab-stops: 1.0in'><b>Disability Rights California Staff: </b><span style='font-weight: normal'>Stuart Seaborn, Dara Schur.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Other Amici: </b><span style='font-weight:normal'>The Legal Aid Society - Employment Law Center, Disability Rights Advocates, the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, and Disability Rights Legal Center.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='tab-stops:1.0in'><b>Grant(s)/Funding Source(s): </b><span style='font-weight:normal'>PADD, PAIMI and PAIR.</span></p> <h1><a name="_Toc246240379" id="_Toc246240379"></a><a name="_Toc246832099" id="_Toc246832099">LANTERMAN WORKGROUP</a></h1> <h2><a name="_Toc246832100" id="_Toc246832100">Regional Center Agrees to Provide Legal Help with Citizenship to Assist V.S. in Returning to Her Parents’ Home</a></h2> <p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_Toc175466873" id="_Toc175466873">V.S. is an adult Korean American female with a diagnosis of Autistic Disorder. She immigrated to the United States with her family four years ago. V.S. has been a client of a Regional Center ever since her family settled in the Los Angeles area.</a></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Both her parents work Monday through Saturday, over 12 hours a day, in the downtown area in Los Angeles. Due to the family’s difficulty with providing care to V.S., who needs constant supervision, V.S. was placed in out-of-home care for the past four years through her Regional Center . Prior to the most current placement, V.S. had never been separated from her family and it has been extremely difficult for her to adjust to her out-of-home placement which was dramatically culturally different from her own family. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">V.S. wishes to return to her parents’ home. Due to V.S.’s immigration status as a permanent resident (non-US citizen), however, she is neither eligible for SSI nor IHSS, both of which require a U.S. citizen status, when she returns to her own home. Therefore, in order for V.S. to return to her own home and safely live on her own, she requires supportive services. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">As a result of Disability Rights California advocacy at an Individual Program Plan (IPP), the Regional Center agreed to refer V.S. to their legal office to assist her with processing a citizenship application. Following the meeting, Disability Rights California followed up with the Regional Center to ensure that it is implementing these agreed upon steps. The Regional Center also agreed to provide respite services in the family home.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span style='color:black'><b>Lanterman</b></span><span style='color:black'>, Goal 1, Obj. A.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span style='color:black'><b>Disability Rights California Staff:</b></span><span style='color:black'> Siyon Rhee.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style='color:black'><b>Grant/Funding Source(s): </b></span><span style='color:black'>PADD.</span></p> <h2><a name="_Toc246240381" id="_Toc246240381"></a><a name="_Toc246832101" id="_Toc246832101">Appeal Filed in the California Court of Appeals, Sixth District, to Appeal Denial of Eligibility for Regional Center Services for Adult with a Developmental Disability</a></h2> <p class="Cases"><span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Brian S. v. Delgadillo, et al.</span></p> <p class="Cases"><em><span style='font-style:normal' lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Case No. H033935, California Court of Appeals, 6th District<b>, </b></span></em><em><span style='font-style:normal' lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">filed September 19, 2009.</span></em> </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span style='color:black'>On March 4, 2009, Disability Rights California filed an appeal of a denial of Regional Center services to a young man with autism. </span>Brian S. <span style='color:black'>was diagnosed as having autism by a neuropsychologist and his treating psychologist of many years. Private counsel represented </span>Brian S. <span style='color:black'>at the administrative hearing and on a Writ before the Superior Court. Disability Rights California agreed to co-counsel with </span>Brian S.<span style='color:black'>’ private counsel in </span>Brian S.’<span style='color:black'> appeal to the California Court of Appeals. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span style='color:black'> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span style='color:black'>The appeal sought to require the Regional Center to provide services to </span>Brian S.<span style='color:black'> based on his meeting the eligibility criteria for autism and having a substantial disability. On appeal, </span>Brian S. <span style='color:black'>is arguing that the superior court erred in not applying the independent judgment test, and by applying a more restrictive eligibility criteria than legally required. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span style='color:black'> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span style='color:black'>Disability Rights California filed the opening brief on September 18, 2009 and anticipates that the hearing will take place in early 2010. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span style='color:black'> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span style='color:black'><b>Lanterman</b></span><span style='color:black'>, Goal 2, Obj. A.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span style='color:black'><b>Disability Rights California Staff:</b></span><span style='color:black'> Timothy Poe, Deborah Dorfman, Dara Schur .</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style='color:black'><b>Grant/Funding Source(s): </b></span><span style='color:black'>PADD.</span></p> <h2><a name="_Toc246240382" id="_Toc246240382"></a><a name="_Toc246832102" id="_Toc246832102">Regional Center Funds Assessments and Provides Gap Funding for Physical Therapy</a></h2> <p>J.P. is a 10 year old boy with Autism and physical disabilities who receives Regional Center services and special education services. J.P. experiences pain in his hands that make it difficult for him to do many of the things 10 year old boy’s enjoy doing such as playing football, video games, and drawing. His physical impairment also prevents him from being able to write using a pencil or to color while at school. </p> <p>Disability Rights California represented J.P. in regards to Regional Center services as well as special education for the purposes of securing much needed therapies for J.P. The school district was proposing to terminate occupational therapy and was in the process of assessing J.P. to determine the need for physical therapy. Disability Rights California successfully advocated on behalf of J.P. at his Individual Program Planning (IPP) meeting to procure assessments in the area of physical and occupational therapy (OT) in an effort to advocate for services through the local school district. </p> <p>The Regional Center agreed to provide physical therapy (gap funding) for this service until the local school district completed its own evaluations and also agreed that a need existed for OT therapy per the assessments conducted by the Regional Center.</p> <p><b>Disability Rights California Staff :</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Carmen Varela. </span><br /> <b>Other Counsel :</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> N/A.</span><br /> <b>Grant/Funding Source(s):</b><span style='font-weight: normal'> PADD</span></p> <h2><a name="_Toc246240383" id="_Toc246240383"></a><a name="_Toc246832103" id="_Toc246832103">Regional Center Consumer’s Eligibility Termination is Revoked</a></h2> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'>W.H., a 6 year old Native American girl, had been a Regional Center consumer since she was a baby. Several months ago, the Regional Center terminated her eligibility, saying that she no longer qualified for Regional Center services. Disability Rights California agreed to represent W.H. in the fair hearing process and helped her to make sure she continued to get services while her appeal was pending.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'> </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'>Disability Rights California hired a qualified expert in the field to do a formal comprehensive neuropsychological evaluation of W.H. to identify the ways in which she might demonstrate that she does in fact meet the criteria for Regional Center eligibility. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'> </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'>Following the expert’s evaluation, Disability Rights California submitted the corresponding report to the Regional Center. Several days later the Regional Center contacted Disability Rights California with the news that it had reconsidered its position and agreed that W.H. is eligible for its services and will remain a Regional Center consumer. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'> </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Lanterman Act</b><span style='font-weight:normal'>: Goal 3, Obj. A.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Disability Rights California Staff</b><span style='font-weight:normal'>: Jonathan Elson.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b>Grant/Funding Source</b><span style='font-weight:normal'>: PADD.</span></p> <h2><a name="_Toc246832104" id="_Toc246832104">Disability Rights California Successfully Challenges Due Process Violations Resulting from Regional Center Terminations of Eligibility and Terminations and Reductions of Respite and other Suspended Services</a></h2> <p><u>Part One: Regional Center Eligibility Terminations:</u></p> <p>In August 2009, Disability Rights California sent a demand letter to two Regional Centers on behalf of ten named individuals and others similarly situated, who were served constitutionally and statutorily deficient notices of action (NOA) terminating their Regional Center eligibility. The problems with the Notices included, but were not limited to: 1) failing to provide the consumer with reasons for the decision to terminate his or her Regional Center eligibility; 2) failing to provide the notice to monolingual non-English speakers in their primary language; and 3) failing to advise consumers that they have a right to appeal their eligibility termination and if they file the request within ten days of receiving the Notice, they have the right to receive continuing services (a.k.a. “aid paid pending”) pending the outcome of their appeal.</p> <p>Disability Rights California requested that the NOAs be withdrawn by the Regional Centers and that eligibility for Regional Center services be restored for the named individuals as well as others similarly situated who received the defective notices. Disability Rights California also requested that the Regional Centers cease sending out any more eligibility termination NOAs until a new NOA, that was mutually agreed upon by Disability Rights California and the Regional Center, could be developed. Disability Rights California also requested that the Regional Centers pay for compensatory services during the period of time that any consumer did not receive services as a result of receiving a defective NOA.</span></p> <p>As a result of Disability Rights California’s advocacy, one Regional Center agreed to withdraw the NOAs and restore Regional Center eligibility to all of the individually named individuals and all individuals similarly situated who received the defective eligibility termination NOAs for the past six months. The Regional Center also agreed to work with Disability Rights California to adopt a mutually agreed upon eligibility termination NOA. Finally, the Regional Center agreed to provide compensation to any individuals who had documented out-of pocket expenses resulting from the termination of their eligibility due to the defective NOAs. The settlement in this case has been implemented.</span></p> <p><u>Part 2: Respite And Suspended Services</u></span></p> <p>As a result of recent California budget cuts, Regional Center respite, social recreation and other similar services have been reduced or suspended. Consequently, Regional Center clients receiving these services received notices of these service terminations and reductions from the Regional Centers. In September of 2009, Disability Rights California received numerous complaints that a Regional Center sent inadequate notice to its consumers about these terminations and reductions. Among the complaints included that the notices: 1) did not state the reasons for the termination or reduction of services or what exact services were being reduced or termination; 2) did not provide consumers with information regarding their right to appeal the terminations and reductions or how to do so; 3) did not advise the consumers of their right to receive continuing services (“aid paid pending”) pending the outcome of their appeals; 4) did not advise the consumers of the exemptions to the termination and reduction of respite and suspended services; and 5) were only in English.</span></p> <p>As a result of these complaints, Disability Rights California sent a letter to the Regional Center requesting that the Regional Center withdraw its notices of action to all of the affected consumers and reinstate the respite and suspended services to them. Disability Rights California also requested that the Regional Center work with Disability Rights California to adopt a mutually agreed upon notice that comports with due process and statutory requirements and that all consumers receiving the notice who timely appeal receive aid-paid pending the outcome of their appeal.</span></p> <p>On September 25, 2008, the parties met for settlement negotiations and reached a partial settlement whereby the Regional Center agreed to work with Disability Rights California to modify its notice to ensure it met constitutional and statutory requirements. It also agreed to ensure that individuals who had timely appealed receive aid paid pending. The other issues, however, were not resolved, and settlement negotiations are continuing. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:60.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-60.0pt'><span style='font-family:ArialMT'><b>Lanterman:</b></span><span style='font-family: ArialMT'> Goal 3 , Obj. A.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:42.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-42.0pt'><span style='font-family:ArialMT'><b>Disability Rights California Staff:</b></span><span style='font-family:ArialMT'> Debbie Dorfman, Tim Poe, Connie</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:42.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-42.0pt'><span style='font-family:ArialMT'>Huang.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-left:59.75pt;text-indent:-59.75pt'><span style='font-family:ArialMT'><b>Grant/Funding Source(s):</b></span><span style='font-family:ArialMT'> PADD.</span></p> <h2><a name="_Toc246832105" id="_Toc246832105">Disability Rights California Challenges Due Process Violations Resulting from Regional Center Terminations and Reductions of Services for Children in the “Early Start” Program</a></h2> <p>Due to recent California budget cuts, many Regional Center clients in the Early Start program were notified by their respective Regional Centers that their services were being cut or reduced. In October of 2009, Disability Rights California received numerous complaints from its constituents and stakeholders that a number of these Regional Centers had terminated or reduced these services without providing constitutionally or statutorily adequate notice and without providing the opportunity to appeal the terminations and reductions or providing continuing services pending the outcome of appeal to which the Early Start consumers were legally entitled.</span></p> <p>After receiving these complaints, in early October, 2009, Disability Rights California sent letters and draft DDS Complaints to five Regional Centers requesting that the Regional Centers rescind their notices of termination and reduction of Early Start services to affected Disability Rights California constituents and reinstate these services to all of the individuals receiving such notice. Additionally, Disability Rights California requested that the Regional Centers immediately cease sending out their notices of action to Early Start consumers’ families and revise the notices to comport with due process and statutory requirements as well ensuring that families were notified of their right to file a due process request and to continue to receive Early Start services pending their appeal and that the notices be provided in the individual’s primary language and be accessible to people with disabilities </span></p> <p>As a result of its advocacy, Disability Rights California successfully negotiated a settlement with one Regional Center that resulted in the reinstatement of Early Start services to approximately 300 children as well as a revision of the notices of action sent by the Regional Center terminating or reducing Early Start services. The Regional Center agreed to comply with constitutional and statutory requirements and ensure that all individuals receiving such notices in the future are advised of their right to a due process hearing and to continued services pending the outcome of their appeals.</span></p> <p>Disability Rights California is currently in settlement negotiations about the notices with the three other Regional Centers</span>. </p> <p>Disability Rights California has filed a complaint with the Department of Developmental Services (DDS) against one Regional Center because of the inadequacy of their notices and is now in the middle of settlement negotiations.</p> <p><span ><b>Education:</b></span><span style='font-family: ArialMT'> Goal, 1 Obj. A; Goal 2, Obj. A.<br /> </span><b>Disability Rights California Staff:</b>Debbie Dorfman and Brigitte Ammons, <span>Candis Watson-Bowles.<br /> </span><span ><b>Grant/Funding Source(s):</b></span><span> PADD.</span></p> <h2><a name="_Toc246240388" id="_Toc246240388"></a><a name="_Toc246832106" id="_Toc246832106">Disability Rights California Uses Its Access Authority to Obtain Name and Contact Information of a Child with a Developmental Disability</a></h2> <p class="MsoNormal">In July of 2009, Disability Rights California obtained a copy of a fair hearing decision issued by the Office of Administrative Hearing terminating Regional Center services for a 5 year old child with autism. The decision indicated that the decision was not based on the evidence presented and there were other problems with the decision. Disability Rights California determined that the child’s rights were violated and that the decision should be appealed. Disability Rights California sent the Regional Center a letter requesting the name of the child as well as the name and contact information for the child’s parents, relying on our access rights under our authorizing statutes. After some additional negotiations, the Regional Center complied with the request and provided the information.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:45.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-45.0pt'><b>Lanterman</b><span style='font-weight:normal'>: Goal 1, Obj. A. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:31.5pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-31.5pt'><b>Disability Rights California Staff:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Debbie Dorfman, Tim Poe.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-left:45.35pt;text-indent:-45.35pt'><b>Grant/Funding Source(s):</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> PADD.</span></p> <h2><a name="_Toc246240389" id="_Toc246240389"></a><a name="_Toc246832107" id="_Toc246832107">Disability Rights California Files Writ to Challenge Regional Center ’s Denial of Eligibility to Child with Autism</a></h2> <p class="MsoNormal">J.N. is a five year old with autism who became a consumer of a Regional Center in 2003. In July of 2008, J.N. received a letter from the Regional Center informing her that she was no longer eligible for Regional Center services and that it was terminating her services. Her mother filed a request for a fair hearing in which she represented herself. She lost the hearing. Disability Rights California learned of the case and with the consent of the mother, filed a writ with the Superior Court to appeal the denial of J.N.’s Regional Center eligibility. Currently the case is pending.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:45.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-45.0pt'><b>Lanterman</b><span style='font-weight:normal'>: Goal 1, Obj. A.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:31.5pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-31.5pt'><b>Disability Rights California Staff:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Debbie Dorfman, Connie Huang.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-left:45.35pt;text-indent:-45.35pt'><b>Grant/Funding Source(s):</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> PADD.</span></p> <h1><a name="_Toc246240390" id="_Toc246240390"></a><a name="_Toc246832108" id="_Toc246832108">MENTAL HEALTH WORKGROUP</a></h1> <h2><a name="_Toc246240391" id="_Toc246240391"></a><a name="_Toc246832109" id="_Toc246832109">Disability Rights California Helps Metropolitan State Hospital Resident Move to Less-Restrictive Setting</a></h2> <p class="MsoNormal">When Disability Rights California first spoke with M.R., he had been residing at Metropolitan State Hospital (Metro) for roughly two years. M.R. was placed at Metro by his Lanterman Petris-Short (LPS) conservator in Riverside County. He has both a psychiatric disability and traumatic brain injury (TBI). An advocate for a community organization in his county was working with him for some time and found several supportive programs which would help M.R. to live in a community-based setting. However, M.R.s treatment team resisted his discharge to a less-restrictive setting.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Disability Rights California staff attended M.R.’s treatment team meetings and advocated with the treatment team to revise unrealistic barriers to discharge. In addition, Disability Rights California advocated with representatives from Riverside County. Metro staff ultimately agreed that M.R. had met discharge criteria and transitioned him to a less-restrictive setting as a step towards living independently.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Disability Rights California staff are continuing to advocate for M.R. In his new placement to ensure that he has the opportunity to live in an integrated, community-based setting.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Mental Health:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Goal 1, Obj. A.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Disability Rights California Staff: </b><span style='font-weight:normal'>Matt Fishler, Kevin Bayley; Law Clerk: Michelle Reed.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b>Grant/Funding Source(s):</b><span style='font-weight: normal'> PAIMI.</span></p> <h2><a name="_Toc246240392" id="_Toc246240392"></a><a name="_Toc246832110" id="_Toc246832110">Disability Rights California Seeks Improved Access under its Federal Authority</a></h2> <h2><a name="_Toc246832111" id="_Toc246832111"><span style='font-family:Arial;text-decoration: none;text-underline:none;font-weight:normal'><i>Disability Rights California v. Sunbridge Braswell Enterprises, Inc. dba Sierra Vista Rehabilitation Center</i></span></a><span style='font-family:Arial;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none;font-weight: normal'><i>;</i></span><span style='font-family:Arial;text-decoration:none; text-underline:none;font-weight:normal'><i> </i></span></h2> <h2><a name="_Toc246832112" id="_Toc246832112"><span style='text-decoration:none;text-underline: none;font-weight:normal'>Case No. CV-09-3664 VBF (FFMx), Federal District Court, Central District of California, Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank, filed May 22, 2009.</span></a></h2> <p class="MsoNormal">In October 2008, Disability Rights California began receiving reports of excessive force in the use of physical restraint at Sierra Vista Rehabilitation Center, which is a nursing facility in San Bernardino that serves individuals with psychiatric and developmental disabilities. As a result of receiving these complaints, Disability Rights California requested statistics on the number of restraint incidents at the facility in 2008 and other information and records relevant to our abuse investigation. The facility denied our request for many of the requested records, citing peer review and quality assurance privileges as well as contesting our probable cause determination concerning all individuals at the facility.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">In addition, in response to Disability Rights California’s request to meet with individuals at the facility on an informal basis, provide information to such persons, and monitor health and safety conditions, defendant denied our access to the facility and imposed onerous terms and conditions on such physical access.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">On May 22, 2009, Disability Rights California filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Motion for Preliminary Injunction to enforce its access authority under federal and state law. Defendant subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss. Hearings on the motions are set for January 2010. Settlement discussions are ongoing.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Mental Health,</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Goal 1, Objective A.<br /> </span><b>Abuse and Neglect</b><span style='font-weight:normal'>, Goal 3, Obj. C.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Disability Rights California Staff:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Michael Stortz, Dara Schur, Kevin Bayley, Rachel Scherer, Maria Iriarte, Kim Swain. Law clerks: Michelle Reed, Theo Fedoruk, Benjamin Eisenberg, Amy Willis, Sean Danmole</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b>Grant/Funding Source(s):</b><span style='font-weight: normal'> PAIMI and PADD.</span></p> <h2><a name="_Toc246240393" id="_Toc246240393"></a><a name="_Toc246832113" id="_Toc246832113">Disability Rights California Assists Individual in Contesting Conservatorship and Disablement of Rights Including Consent to Medical Treatment</a></h2> <p class="MsoNormal"><i>Jacqueline B. v. Public Guardian of Marin County</i></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Case No. 121847, California Court of Appeal, First District</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Disability Rights California, Morton Cohen, Professor of Law at Golden Gate University, and Colleen Sonneborn of the Marin County Public Defender’s Office are representing <i>Jacqueline B. </i><span style='font-style: normal'>in an appeal of an order of the Marin County Superior Court establishing a Lanterman Petris-Short (LPS) conservatorship and disabling her of her rights, including the right to consent to psychiatric treatment and other medical treatment. Immediately after the hearing finding Jacqueline B. to be gravely disabled, the court imposed the “regular” disabilities, which meant that the court took away all rights except the right to vote.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Disability Rights California and co-counsel filed an appeal on her behalf. Following oral argument, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the grounds that it is moot. The court held that given the “fact-specific” nature of the case, there is no “compelling” reason to hear the case. However, the court noted that the failure of the trial court to make findings regarding the imposition of special disabilities separately from the finding of grave disability would be a violation of due process. The court also stated, incorrectly, that counsel jointly submitted a proposed order containing special disabilities to the commissioner before the commissioner had either considered the appropriateness of imposing special disabilities or made findings on the issue. In fact, the commissioner issued a minute order at the conclusion of the hearing stating that “Regular Disabilities are Imposed Including the Firearms Restriction .... County Counsel will Prepare and Submit Order."</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Following the dismissal of the appeal, a petition for review was filed with the California Supreme Court. On October 28, 2009, the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, granted the petition and transferred the case back to the Court of Appeal with directions to vacate the order dismissing the appeal, to reinstate the appeal, and to consider the cause on the merits. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">Counsel is now considering whether to submit a supplemental brief and request additional oral argument in the Court of Appeal.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Mental Health:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Goal 2, Obj. A.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Disability Rights California Staff: </b><span style='font-weight:normal'>Daniel Brzovic.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Co-counsel:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Morton Cohen, Golden Gate University School of Law; Colleen Sonneborn, Marin County Public Defender’s Office.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b>Grant/Funding Source(s):</b><span style='font-weight: normal'> PAIMI.</span></p> <h2><a name="_Toc246240394" id="_Toc246240394"></a><a name="_Toc246832114" id="_Toc246832114">Disability Rights California Comments on Emergency Regulation Proposal by Department of Mental Health</a></h2> <p class="MsoNormal">The California Department of Mental Health (DMH) proposed several regulations governing operations of the state hospitals. The proposal covered many areas, ranging from requirements to involuntarily medicate hospital residents to allowable sizes of mail. The Department argued that due to the nature of the proposed regulations they need to be approved on an emergency basis and bypass the usual procedure for promulgation of regulations. Among the reasons cited were the large numbers of petitions filed against DMH which argue that DMH policies are underground regulations which were not properly submitted for public comment.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Disability Rights California staff wrote a letter to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), copying DMH, arguing that the basis which DMH had cited to justify emergency promulgation did not sufficiently make the case that the regulations were necessary to avoid serious harm to the public peace, health, safety or general welfare, as required by law. The letter further argued that some of the proposed regulations do not adequately track other sources of state. In particular, the proposal concerning involuntary medication does not follow the standards set out in case law.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Subsequently, OAL approved one of the proposed regulations, concerning state hospital resident possession of electronic devices which may send or receive communications. DMH withdrew the other proposed regulations. Disability Rights California will continue to monitor the situation in case the regulations are resubmitted. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Mental Health: </b><span style='font-weight:normal'>Goal 1, Obj. A.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Disability Rights California Staff:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Sean Rashkis, Kevin Bayley</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b>Grant/Funding Source(s):</b><span style='font-weight: normal'> IOLTA. </span></p> <h2><a name="_Toc246240395" id="_Toc246240395"></a><a name="_Toc246832115" id="_Toc246832115">Disability Rights California Presents on Pre-Admission Screening and Resident Review at Patients’ Rights Advocacy Training</a></h2> <p class="MsoNormal">Disability Rights California gave a presentation on Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) at the recent Patients’ Rights Advocacy Training (PRAT). Under Medicaid law, people entering nursing facilities have a right to receive an assessment, known as a screening, that is designed to determine whether or not the facility is the best place for them to get the care which they need. It is specifically designed to make sure that individuals with a mental illness or a developmental disability can get the services they need and to determine whether they can be served in the community instead of in a facility.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Pamela Cohen of the Bay Area Regional Office, Sean Rashkis of the Sacramento Regional Office and Kevin Bayley of the Los Angeles Regional Office conducted the training on September 24, 2009 in Foster City, California. The training covered a basic introduction to the PASRR program, as well as how PASRR screenings can be used by patients’ rights advocates. There was also a discussion of the limitations of the PASRR program.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Mental Health:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Goal 4, Obj. B.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Disability Rights California Staff:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Pam Cohen, Sean Rashkis, Kevin Bayley.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b>Grant/Funding Source(s):</b><span style='font-weight: normal'> PAIMI.</span></p> <h2><a name="_Toc246832116" id="_Toc246832116">Disability Rights California Presents on Procedures for Filing Medi-Cal Specialty Mental Health Grievances, Appeals, and Requests for Fair Hearing at Patients’ Rights Advocacy Training</a></h2> <p class="MsoNormal">Disability Rights California gave a presentation on filing Medi-Cal specialty mental health grievances, appeals, and requests for fair hearing at a recent Patients’ Rights Advocacy Training (PRAT). Under Medicaid law (Medi-Cal in California), individual beneficiaries have a right to challenge a denial, reduction, suspension or termination of eligibility or benefits. This includes specialty mental health benefits provided by mental health plans (county mental health departments). There is a two-step process for this that includes: an appeal to the mental health plan, and, if the beneficiary is dissatisfied with the appeal decision, a request for fair hearing with the state. There is also a process for filing a grievance with the mental health plan for all other service issues.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Daniel Brzovic, Bay Area Regional Office and Sean Rashkis, Sacramento Regional Office conducted the training on September 23, 2009 in Foster City, California.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Mental Health:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Goal 4, Obj. B.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Disability Rights California Staff:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Daniel Brzovic, Sean Rashkis.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b>Grant/Funding Source(s):</b><span style='font-weight: normal'> PAIMI.</span></p> <h2><a name="_Toc246240397" id="_Toc246240397"></a><a name="_Toc246832117" id="_Toc246832117">Disability Rights California Provides Training on Immigrant Rights to Patients’ Rights Advocates</a> </h2> <p class="MsoNormal">On September 24, 2009, Ann Menasche, Disability Rights California co-presented with Jim Preis, Director of Mental Health Advocacy Services, a workshop on “Securing Patients’ Rights for Immigration Detainees” to the annual Patients’ Rights Advocacy Training (PRAT) conference. Approximately 15 Patients’ Rights Advocates from around the state attended the workshop.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Jim Preis presented an overview of immigrants’ rights issues as they relate to persons with mental disabilities. Ann Menasche provided a history of her successful campaign to end the denial of immigrant patients’ rights including the shackling of detainees at Alvarado Parkway Institute, a private psychiatric hospital in San Diego County. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Mental Health:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Goal 4, Obj. B.<br /> </span><b>Disability Rights California Staff:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Ann Menasche. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Co-Presenter:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Jim Preis, Mental Health Advocacy Services.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b>Fund:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> PAIMI</span></p> <h1><a name="_Toc246240398" id="_Toc246240398"></a><a name="_Toc246832118" id="_Toc246832118">EDUCATION for Children and youth</a></h1> <h2><a name="_Toc246240399" id="_Toc246240399"></a><a name="_Toc246832119" id="_Toc246832119">Student Obtains Classification of “Autism” for Special Education Eligibility.</a></h2> <p class="MsoNormal">K.B. is a 9 year old student who had been eligible for special education services for years under several categories (“other health impaired,” specific learning disability, and speech and language impairment). In November 2008, she was diagnosed with autism by the MIND Institute. Despite this diagnosis, and an acknowledgment by the Regional Center that she had autism, the district would not recognize this. Without autism listed as her qualifying condition, it would be difficult for K.B. to get the services she needs. Moreover, potential autism-related behaviors could be misinterpreted by the district as non-disability-related misbehaviors. Disability Rights California filed for due process and represented K.B. at mediation and a pre-hearing conference. Two days before the scheduled hearing, the district agreed to change K.B.’s eligibility category to autism. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Education for Children and Youth</b><span style='font-weight:normal'>: Goal 1, Obj. A</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Disability Rights California Staff</b><span style='font-weight:normal'>: Will Schell, Jonathan Elson</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b>Grant/Funding Source</b><span style='font-weight:normal'>: Equal Access; PADD</span></p> <h2><a name="_Toc246240400" id="_Toc246240400"></a><a name="_Toc246832120" id="_Toc246832120">Student Receives AB 3632 Services and Avoids Expulsion</a></h2> <p class="MsoNormal" style='punctuation-wrap:hanging;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric ideograph-other'>Y.B. is a 12 year old who receives special education services as a student with a Specific Learning Disability. She has a history of defiant behaviors as well as fighting with other students. Despite this history, the school had never done a mental health Functional Analysis Assessment (FAA). An FAA is a behavior analysis to review behavior in order to come up with a behavioral intervention plan to address problem behaviors. They also did not refer her for AB 3632 mental health services from County mental health or find her eligible for mental health services as a student with an emotional disturbance. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='punctuation-wrap:hanging;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric ideograph-other'>At the time Disability Rights California became involved in the case, the district suspended her for slapping another student and subsequently, for bringing tequila to school. The school recommended expulsion and Disability Rights California represented Y.B. at both manifestation determination review meetings where the school agreed to refer her for an AB 3632 assessment, but decided to proceed with expulsion. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='punctuation-wrap:hanging;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric ideograph-other'>Following those meetings, Disability Rights California negotiated a settlement with the School District whereby the District agreed to not pursue expulsion for any events from the 2008-2009 school year, fund a FAA by an independent assessor, and conduct a new psychoeducational assessment, focusing specifically on social-emotional functioning. The AB 3632 assessment was completed and Y.B. was found eligible for services. The FAA and psychoeducational assessments are pending.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Education for Children and Youth</b><span style='font-weight:normal'>: Goal 1, Obj. A</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Disability Rights California Staff</b><span style='font-weight:normal'>: Connie Huang.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Grant/Funding Source</b><span style='font-weight:normal'>: Equal Access</span> </p> <h2><a name="_Toc246240401" id="_Toc246240401"></a><a name="_Toc246832121" id="_Toc246832121"><span style='font-family: Arial'>Student Allowed to Participate in Graduation Ceremony</span></a></h2> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;punctuation-wrap: hanging;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric ideograph-other'><span style='color:black'>T.S. is an 8<sup>th</sup> grader at a school in the Long Beach area and was scheduled to graduate from middle school to high school. He had a 504 plan for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). A week before graduation, T.S. received a two day in-house suspension for crawling into the student store and breaking a window. He served one day of the suspension, but was sick on the second day. The teacher informed him that he could not participate in the graduation ceremony because he had not completed his suspension. T.S.’s mother and T.S. were very upset because many family members and friends were planning to attend the ceremony and T.S. was going to receive an academic award. The mother’s attempts to negotiate with the principal and school district were fruitless. At the mother’s request, Disability Rights California intervened on behalf of T.S. to advocate that he be allowed to participate in the graduation ceremony. As a result of this advocacy, the school district allowed T.S. to participate in the graduation ceremony and to complete his second day of in-school suspension the day after the graduation ceremony, which was the last day of school on the condition he complete the suspension and that his mother pay for the cost of repairing the window. T.S.’s mother agreed to those terms and T.S. was able to attend his graduation ceremony and receive his award. </span> </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Education for Children and Youth</b><span style='font-weight:normal'>: Goal 4</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Disability Rights California Staff</b><span style='font-weight:normal'>: Connie Huang.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Grant/Funding Source</b><span style='font-weight:normal'>: Equal Access</span> </p> <h1><a name="_Toc246240402" id="_Toc246240402"></a><a name="_Toc246832122" id="_Toc246832122">VOTING ISSUE TEAM</a></h1> <h2><a name="_Toc246240403" id="_Toc246240403"></a><a name="_Toc246832123" id="_Toc246832123">Disability Rights California Participates in the Los Angeles County Voting Systems Assessment Project</a></h2> <p class="Default"><span>Recently, the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s Office (Registrar) launched a county-wide Voting Systems Assessment Project (Project). The goal of the project is to overhaul the county’s current voting system Inka Vote and Inka Vote Plus, a paper-based optical scan system. Inka Vote Plus is the audio ballot reader intended to meet the needs of voters with disabilities and language assistance needs.</span> </p> <p class="Default"><span>As part of the Project, the Registrar hosted, with support from the Caltech-MIT Voting Technology Project, an all day by invitation-only symposium at the California Institute of Technology titled, “<i>Technology, Diversity, and Democracy: The Future of Voting Systems in Los Angeles County” </i></span><span>Disability Rights California staff attended the symposium which included more than 100 community leaders, election advocates, voters, political party representatives, and election administrators including U.S. Election Assistance Commissioner Donetta Davidson and representatives from California Secretary of State Debra Bowen’s office to discuss and identify the current and future needs a new voting system will have to meet in serving the County’s more than four million registered voters.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The event featured focus group discussions where participants tackled core voting systems issues such as accessibility, security and accuracy, usability, and flexibility. The goal of the focus groups was to allow the diverse stakeholders to define the needs and principles by which each of these factors can be measured, specifically as it pertains to the unique needs of Los Angeles County.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Subsequent roundtables specifically focused on ease of use, technology, legal requirements, and regulatory framework are also planned. The meetings, to be held October through December of 2009, will draw on a diverse array of experts, from computer scientists, academics, and other voting technology experts to policy makers and regulatory agencies – to contribute to the planning effort. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Voting (Discrimination):</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Goal 4B</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Disability Rights California Staff:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Hillary Sklar</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Grant/Funding Source(s):</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> PAVA</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'> </p> <h2><a name="_Toc246240404" id="_Toc246240404"></a><a name="_Toc246832124" id="_Toc246832124"><span style='font-family: Arial'>Disability Rights California Comments on Election Assistance Commission’s Voting System Guidelines</span></a></h2> <p class="MsoNormal">The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) recently called for comments on the latest draft of Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG). These guidelines are intended to ensure that voting system manufacturers are producing machines for elections which are accessible to all voters.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Disability Rights California staff provided comments to the EAC regarding the guidelines. The comments included a request that voters with disabilities be involved in all stages of the development and testing of voting systems. Additionally, Disability Rights California asked that the guidelines be more fully descriptive of how voters with different disabilities are helped by the recommendations, in order to make clear to the manufacturers that some voters may confront myriad barriers to voting as a result of the poor design of a voting system.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Currently, the EAC is reviewing the comments. Disability Rights California will continue to monitor the guidelines to ensure that voting is accessible to all.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Voting (Discrimination): </b><span style='font-weight:normal'>Goal 6.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Disability Rights California Staff:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Hillary Sklar, Margaret Jakobson, Kevin Bayley.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Grant/Funding Source(s):</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> PAVA</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'> </p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style='text-align:center'><b>OTHER</b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b><u>Disability Right California Submits Comments on Proposed State Bar Ethics Rule 1.14 on “Clients with Diminished Capacity”</u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The California State Bar is considering a proposed new Rule of Professional Conduct (ethics rule) regarding the relationship between lawyers and “clients with diminished capacity.” On November 13, 2009, Disability Rights California, along with six other advocacy organizations, submitted comments to the Bar opposing the new rule.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">The new rule was developed in response to the perceptions and concerns of many lawyers, particularly those who specialize in estates and trusts (wills), that clients with increasingly severe Alzheimer’s disease or other cognitive disabilities sometimes are unable to provide necessary direction to their lawyers so that that the lawyers can assist in preventing harm to the clients. Under the current ethical rules, a lawyer cannot reveal client confidences even if they are doing so to assist the client. The proposed rule provides: “When the lawyer reasonably believes (i) that the client has significantly diminished capacity such that the client is unable to make adequately considered decisions in connection with a representation and further that, as a result of such significantly diminished capacity, (ii) the client is at risk of substantial physical, financial or other harm unless action is taken, and (iii) the client cannot adequately act in his or her own interest, the lawyer may, but is not required to, notify an individual or organization that has the ability to take action to protect the client.” This rule, although new to California, is similar to the ethical rule that currently exists in most states.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">While recognizing the genuine concerns for clients that have triggered the rule, Disability Rights California believes that the new rule, as drafted, contains many ambiguities and would unnecessarily jeopardize attorney-client confidences and trust in the attorney-client relationship, would erode rights to personal autonomy, does not adequately address lawyers’ obligations to provide reasonable accommodations under state and federal disability rights laws, doesn’t adequately address the need for training before lawyers could make determinations about client capacity and alternate resources, and fails to appropriately consider the express interests of clients. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">The State Bar will be considering comments to this and other rules changes. Any changes will ultimately have to go to the California Supreme Court, and in some circumstances the state Legislature, before final adoption.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Advocacy Principle: </b><span style='font-weight:normal'>Enforcing Rights: Make sure that there is access to courts, administrative agencies, and legal services so that individuals with disabilities can defend and enforce their rights.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Disability Rights California Staff:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Michael Stortz, Dara Schur, Stephen Rosenbaum.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Other Counsel:</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Disability Rights Legal Center, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, Mental Health Advocacy Services, and the National Senior Citizen Law Center.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b>Grant/Funding Source(s):</b><span style='font-weight:normal'> All Feds/IOLTA</span> </p> <h1 style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><a name="_Toc208380111" id="_Toc208380111"></a><a name="_Toc215024775" id="_Toc215024775"></a><a name="_Toc222287253" id="_Toc222287253"></a><a name="_Toc222713521" id="_Toc222713521"></a><a name="_Toc231362285" id="_Toc231362285"></a><a name="_Toc233012347" id="_Toc233012347"></a><a name="_Toc246832125" id="_Toc246832125">GLOSSARY OF SELECTED TERMS</a></h1> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style='text-align:center'>(Updated November 19, 2009)</p> <h3>“A&D FPL PROGRAM” or AGED & DISABLED FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL PROGRAM (Also referred to as the Medi-Cal 133% Program)</h3> <p> Individuals or married couples whose income is more than SSI levels, but who are still considered low income, may be eligible to receive Medi-Cal with no share of cost under this program. Under this program an individual who needs assistance with personal care and/or housekeeping tasks so they can remain safely in their homes can also receive these services with no share of cost.</p> <h3> AB 2726/3632</h3> <p> Assembly Bills 2726 and 3632 provide referrals to County Mental Health Services for children with special education needs beyond what schools can offer. These services are considered special education services, and they include behavioral assessments, individual or group therapy, occupational and physical therapy, and mental health services. (Also known as “AB 3632,” or “Chapter 26.5” or Gov. Code §§ 7570 – 7588)</p> <h3> “ADHD” or ATTENTION DEFICIT-HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER</h3> <p> Attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a neurobehavioral disorder that affects 3 - 5 percent of all American children. It interferes with a person's ability to stay on a task and to exercise age-appropriate inhibition (cognitive alone or both cognitive and behavioral). Some of the warning signs of ADHD include failure to listen to instructions, inability to organize oneself and school work, fidgeting with hands and feet, talking too much, leaving projects, chores and homework unfinished, and having trouble paying attention to and responding to details. There are several types of ADHD: a predominantly inattentive subtype, a predominantly hyperactive-impulsive subtype, and a combined subtype. ADHD is usually diagnosed in childhood, although the condition can continue into the adult years.</p> <h3> “ADR” or ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION</h3> <p> Methods of resolving disputes without official court proceedings. These methods include MEDIATION and ARBITRATION.</p> <h3> <em>AMICUS CURIAE</em></h3> <p> Disability Rights California is often asked to appear as an organizational “amicus curiae,” or “friend of the court” in court cases raising important issues for people with disabilities. Appearing as an “amicus” means that Disability Rights California submits a brief to the court raising issues as an organization, rather than on behalf of individual clients, because the issues are important to us as an advocacy organization or important to people with disabilities. When Disability Rights California appears as amicus curiae, DRC Staff usually assists with drafting and revising the brief, and co-signs the brief with other interested parties.</p> <h3> ARBITRATION</h3> <p> When a person that isn't involved in the case looks at the evidence, hears the arguments, and makes a decision.</p> <h3> BEHAVIOR INTERVENTION PLAN</h3> <p> Plans made by a local educational agency (LEA) as part of an individualized education program (IEP), to change the behavior of students who harm themselves, assault others, or are destructive.</p> <h3> “BPAO” or BENEFITS, PLANNING, ASSISTANCE, AND OUTREACH</h3> <p> The Social Security Administration (SSA), as authorized by the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999, awarded cooperative agreements to a variety of community organizations called Benefits Planning, Assistance, and Outreach (BPAO) projects. These BPAO projects provide all SSA beneficiaries with disabilities (including transition-to-work aged youth) access to benefits planning and assistance services. The goal of the Benefits Planning, Assistance, and Outreach (BPAO) Program is to better enable SSA`s beneficiaries with disabilities to make informed choices about work. Each BPAO Project has Benefits Specialists who will:</p> <ul> <li>Provide work incentives planning and assistance to SSA`s beneficiaries with disabilities </li> <li>Conduct outreach efforts to those beneficiaries (and their families), who are potentially eligible to participate in Federal or State work incentives programs; and </li> <li>Work in cooperation with Federal, State, and private agencies and nonprofit organizations that serve beneficiaries with disabilities. </li> </ul> <h3>“BWE” or BLIND WORK EXPENSES</h3> <p> If the Social Security Administration (SSA) considers you <a href="http://www.workworld.org/wwwebhelp/blind.htm">statutorily blind</a>, you can have your actual benefit amount increased by up to 100% of all your work expenses, whether or not those expenses are related to your disability. You can claim transportation expenses, the cost of lunch at work, and even the taxes you pay because of earnings. If your SSA Claims Representative agrees that your claimed work expenses can be included in a BWE, you may be able to recover up to 100% of those expenses by increasing your SSI check up to its maximum. Exactly how much your SSI benefit may increase depends on your living situation, your earned and unearned income, and the amount of your BWE. </p> <h3> CALWORKs</h3> <p> “CalWORKS” is California's welfare program for people who have children under 19 years old. CalWORKs provides money for children and the relatives caring for them. Work and training is required of most parents. Adults can only get CalWORKs cash aid for five years in a lifetime. If you qualify under the rules, you are entitled to cash aid from the county. </p> <h3> “CDR” or CONTINUING DISABILITY REVIEW </h3> <p> Social Security Administration (SSA) reviews disability cases periodically to see if the person with a disability still meets SSA disability rules. SSA performs two types of reviews, a medical Continuing Disability Review and a work Continuing Disability Review. Under a work review, SSA looks at earnings to determine if an individual is eligible for monthly benefits. A medical review determines if an individual is meeting the medical requirements to collect disability. If the person does not meet the medical requirements, SSA may stop the disability benefits.</p> <h3> “CI” or COUNTABLE INCOME</h3> <p> Countable Income is the amount of your income that is included in calculations to determine your eligibility for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits.</p> <h3> CLASS ACTION</h3> <p> A lawsuit brought by one or more persons on behalf of a larger group where certain individuals (called “class representatives” or “named plaintiffs”) act on behalf of a larger group of people who have similar issues. The court has to determine whether a case can proceed as a class action. If so, certain specific procedures apply relating to how the members of the larger group can get notice of the lawsuit and participate in it.</p> <h3> CONSERVATOR, CONSERVATEE and CONSERVATORSHIP</h3> <p> Conservatorship is a legal proceeding in which an individual or agency (to be known as the “conservator”) is appointed by a court to be responsible for a person who needs assistance in activities of daily living (the “conservatee”). A Conservator of the person must ensure that the conservatee is properly fed, clothed, and housed. A Conservator of the estate is responsible for managing the conservatee’s money and other property. One individual may serve as either conservator of the person or conservator of the estate or both. Conservatorship applies to an adult, i.e., a person eighteen (18) years of age or older.</p> <h3> “CASA” or COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES </h3> <p> Court appointed special advocates are specially trained volunteers who are appointed by a juvenile court to provide advocacy to children in the foster care system. CASA responsibilities include gathering information regarding the child; advocating for the child in IEP meetings and other forums; and making recommendations to the juvenile court about the child’s best interests.</p> <h3> “CYA” or CALIFORNIA YOUTH AUTHORITY</h3> <p> The California Youth Authority (CYA), a California State agency of facilities for youths who have committed serious offenses.</p> <h3> DAMAGES</h3> <p> Money that the losing side must pay to the winning side to make up for losses or injuries. There are three kinds of damages: (1) "compensatory," meaning money to pay for the actual cost of an injury or loss; (2) "punitive" or "exemplary," meaning an amount of money that's more than the actual damages. Acts as punishment or deterrence for willful or malicious acts; and (3) statutory damages, which are specific amounts in the law awarded for specific legal violations.</p> <h3> DECLARATION</h3> <p> A statement that a person writes and files with the court. It tells the judge why the person should win the case. Sometimes, a person signs this under penalty of perjury.</p> <h3> DECLARATORY JUDGMENT</h3> <p> A judgment of the court that explains what the existing law is or expresses the opinion of the court without the need for enforcement.</p> <h3> DEMURRER</h3> <p> A “demurrer” is a specific kind of request filed with the Court in response to a lawsuit. A demurrer alleges that even if the facts are true, there is no legal violation. The court decides on the demurrer at a hearing after both parties present memos and argument to the court.</p> <h3> DEPOSITION</h3> <p> Written or oral testimony given under oath in front of an authorized third person like a court reporter. Depositions take place outside of the court. They allow the parties to get a record of a person's testimony, or to get testimony from a witness that lives far away. They can help the lawyers prepare their court papers called "pleadings." (<em>See also</em> DISCOVERY.)</p> <h3> “DDS” or CA DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES</h3> <p> The California Department of Developmental Services (DDS), which funds and oversees services to people with developmental disabilities in California.</p> <h3> “DFEH” or CA DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING</h3> <p> The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing is the state agency that investigates employment and housing discrimination claims and is responsible for enforcing state fair housing and fair employment laws, including disability rights laws in the housing and employment context.</p> <h3> “DHS” or CA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES</h3> <p> The California Department of Health Services (DHS), which funds and oversees health services in California, including nursing home care and home care.</p> <h3> DISCOVERY</h3> <p> The gathering of information (facts, documents, or testimony) before a case goes to trial. Discovery is done in many ways, such as through depositions, interrogatories, or requests for admissions. It can also be done through independent investigation or by talking with the other side's lawyer.</p> <h3> DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE</h3> <p> When a court dismisses a case and will not allow any other suit to be filed on the same claim in the future.</p> <h3> DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE</h3> <p> When a court dismisses a case, but will allow other suits to be filed on the same claim.</p> <h3> “DMH” or CA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH</h3> <p> The California Department of Mental Health (DMH), which funds and oversees mental health services in California.</p> <h3> “DOE” or DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION</h3> <h3> “DSS” or CA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES</h3> <p> The California Department of Social Services (DSS) funds and oversees public assistance programs in California, including CalWORKS (family assistance) and case management for personal care services.</p> <h3> DYSAUTONOMIA</h3> <p> (Familial) Dysautonomia affects the autonomic nervous system, which controls involuntary actions such as digestion, breathing, tearing, and the regulation of blood pressure and body temperature. This condition also affects the sensory nervous system, which controls activities related to the senses, such as taste and the perception of pain, heat, and cold. </p> <h3> “EA” or EQUAL ACCESS</h3> <p> Disability Rights California receives grants from the state Equal Access to Justice Program to serve indigent people with disabilities on specified projects.</p> <h3> ELLIS ACT</h3> <p> The Ellis Act (California Government Code §§ 7600 et seq.) is a California law that bars local governments from enacting regulations, such as condominium conversion ordinances, that would prevent some landlords from leaving the rental housing market.</p> <h3> EN BANC</h3> <p> Court sessions where all the judges of a court participate, instead of the usual number. For example, the U.S. circuit courts of appeals usually use panels of three judges, but all the judges in the court may decide certain matters together. When that happens, they are sitting <em>"en banc"</em> (sometimes spelled "in banc"). It comes from the French language and means "on the bench."</p> <h3> “EPSDT” or EARLY AND PERIODIC SCREENING, DIAGNOSIS, AND TREATMENT</h3> <p> The Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment Program (EPSDT) provides health care diagnostic and treatment services to individuals under age 21. Under federal law, California must give people under age 21 specified diagnostic services. They also must provide treatment services to correct or ameliorate defects and physical and mental illnesses and conditions discovered as a result of the diagnostic services. </p> <h3> EXCEPTION PAYMENT</h3> <p> “Exception Payment” is a subsidy above the amount usually allowed.</p> <h3> “EXR” or EXPEDITED REINSTATEMENT</h3> <p> This term is used under The Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) programs to allow benefits for a person with a disability to be reinstated quickly if they are no longer working. It provides for temporary benefits during a period of evaluation, rather than requiring a new application for benefits.</p> <h3> “EPE” or EXTENDED PERIOD OF ELIGIBILITY</h3> <p> This term is used under the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) programs to provide additional protections to people whose disabilities may only allow periodic employment. Under these programs, if you stop working you may automatically have your benefits restored without having to reapply. </p> <h3> FAIR HEARING</h3> <p> A hearing in front of an agency or administrative law judge to review an agency decision. People have certain rights in fair hearings such as the right to present evidence, to cross examine and to have findings supported by evidence.</p> <h3> “FMR” or FAIR MARKET RENT</h3> <p> The Fair Market Rent (FMR) is the amount that the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) sets for rent. Tenants have to pay extra if rents exceed the FMR, as they usually do because the FMR’s are unrealistically low. </p> <h3> “FIFTH CATEGORY” REGIONAL CENTER ELIGIBILITY</h3> <p> A person is eligible for the "fifth category" if he or she has a condition that is similar to mental retardation and/or has treatment needs that are similar to a person with mental retardation. </p> <h3> FORENSIC</h3> <p> A term used by both DDS and DMH and intended to indicate individuals who have had some involvement with the criminal justice system, though sometimes used too broadly for people with aggressive behavioral challenges. The intersection between the mental health system and the criminal justice system is often called “forensic mental health.” In California, there are six different commitment categories for people who are involved with the mental health system because of their contact with the criminal justice system.</p> <h3> <strong>“FAA” or FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS ASSESSMENT</strong></h3> <p> An FAA is a mental health behavior analysis to review an individual’s behavior in order to come up with a behavioral intervention plan to address problem behaviors.</p> <h3> “G-TUBE” or GASTROSTOMY TUBE</h3> <p> A Gastrostomy Tube (G-Tube) is a tube that is placed on the stomach to vent for air or drainage, and/or is an alternate way for feeding.</p> <h3> GUARDIAN AD LITEM</h3> <p> An adult appointed by a court who represents a minor child an individual who has difficulties in acting on his or her own behalf. Comes from Latin meaning for the "purposes of the lawsuit."</p> <h3> GUARDIANSHIP</h3> <p> A guardianship applies only to minors, i.e., person under the age of eighteen (18) years. The principal purpose of guardianship is to provide protection for a child who has no parent.<strong></strong></p> <h3> <em>HABEAS CORPUS</em></h3> <p> A “writ of <em>habeas corpus</em>” is a judicial mandate to someone who has custody of a person ordering that the person be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is lawfully confined and whether or not the person should be released from custody. A habeas corpus petition is a petition filed with a court by a person who objects to the person’s own or another’s confinement, or to the conditions of confinement. The term comes from Latin.</p> <h3> “HHS” or HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES</h3> <p> HHS is the federal agency overseeing health and human services.</p> <h3> “HIPAA” or HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT</h3> <p> The new federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) protects the privacy of medical records and other confidential health information, and restricts access to records except under specified circumstances.</p> <h3> “HOUSING CHOICE VOICHER” OR “SECTION 8”</h3> <p> Housing Choice Vouchers, often referred to as Section 8 Vouchers, help subsidize rents for lower income tenants, including tenants with disabilities. The local Public Housing Authority (PHA) pays part of the tenant’s rent when the tenant rents from a private landlord.</p> <h3> “HUD” or U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT</h3> <p> The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds and regulates many housing and community development programs for lower income people and people with disabilities, including Section 8.</p> <h3> “ICF-DD-N” or INTERMEDIATE CARE FACILITY DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED-NURSING</h3> <p> Intermediate Care Facility-Developmentally Disabled-Nursing (ICF-DD-N) are a category of community facilities licensed by the California Department of Health Services (DHS), which generally house 6 residents.</p> <h3> “IDEA” or INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT</h3> <p> The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is the federal statute that requires school districts receiving federal funds to provide all students who have a categorically defined disability with a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment. FAPE includes specialized instruction and related services that meet the state educational standards and are implemented as called for in a student’s individualized education program (IEP).</p> <h3> “IEP” or INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAM</h3> <p> An Individualized Education Program (IEP) describes the educational program that has been designed to meet the unique needs of a child with disabilities. Each child who receives special education and related services must have an IEP, which is an individualized document developed in consultation with the parents, school, advocates, students (as appropriate), and health professionals. </p> <h3> “IHSS” or IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES PROGRAM</h3> <p> The In-Home Supportive Services Program (IHSS) helps pay for services to eligible people to enable them to stay in their own homes. To be eligible you must be blind or have a disability or be over 65 and need these services so you can remain safely in your home. IHSS is an alternative to out-of-home care such as nursing homes or board and care facilities.</p> <h3> “IMD” or INSTITUTION FOR MENTAL DISEASE</h3> <p> An IMD is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations at 42 CFR 435.1009 as a facility of more than 16 beds that is primarily engaged in providing treatment services for individuals diagnosed with mental illness. </p> <h3> IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITALITY</h3> <p> The right to get an apartment in good condition. </p> <h3> IN-HOME OPERATIONS HOME AND COMMUNITY-BASED SERVICES (IHO-HCBS WAIVER)</h3> <p> The new IHO HCBS waiver combines several existing waivers, including the NF/AB waiver, to expand the number of slots and services that waiver recipients who would otherwise be institutionalized in a nursing facility, sub acute facility or acute hospital can receive in the community. </p> <h3> INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT (ICWA)</h3> <p> This is a federal law to protect the integrity of American Indian families. It acknowledges and implements the tribe’s right to intervene in state child custody proceedings.</p> <h3> INJUNCTION</h3> <p> An injunction or permanent restraining order is a court order requiring someone to take specific actions or ordering them to stop certain behaviors, based on legal obligations. It is issued after both sides have been heard by the court in a hearing or trial. The court order specifies the specific actions, people and time for compliance.</p> <h3> <em>IN FORMA PAUPERIS</em> (IFP)</h3> <p> A court says a person does not have to pay a filing fee because the person can't afford it. In Latin, it means "in the manner of a pauper.”</p> <h3> <em>IN PROPIA PERSONA</em> (<em>IN PRO PER</em>)</h3> <p> <em>In Propia</em> is when a person represents himself or herself without a lawyer. This comes from the Latin for "in one's own proper person." (See also PRO PER AND PRO SE.)</p> <h3> INTERROGATORIES</h3> <p> Written questions asked by one party in a lawsuit, which the opposing party must answer in writing.</p> <h3> INTERVENOR </h3> <p> A person who voluntarily participates in a lawsuit or other proceeding brought by other people. The court must approve the participation of the intervener.</p> <h3> “IOLTA” or INTEREST ON LAWYERS TRUST ACCOUNTS</h3> <p> This is a method of funding for legal services to low income people and people with disabilities. It is also referred to as “Trust Fund”. It is administered by the State Bar Association. Disability Rights California receives IOLTA funding. </p> <h3> “IPP” or INDIVIDUAL PROGRAM PLAN</h3> <p> California’s Lanterman Act provides that persons with developmental disabilities are entitled to “IPPs,” or Individual Program Plans that identifies the person’s goals and the services and supports they will get to help them meet their goals. This action plan helps provide community supports to prevent institutionalization of people with developmental disabilities.</p> <h3> “IRWE” or IMPAIRMENT RELATED WORK EXPENSES</h3> <p> This term is used under The Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) AND Supplemental Security Income (SSI) programs to refer to out-of-pocket expenses that are needed in order to be able to work. These expenses are deducted from earnings before certain benefit calculations are made.</p> <h3> JUDGMENT (JUDGEMENT)</h3> <p> The judge's final decision in a case.</p> <h3> LANTERMAN ACT</h3> <p> The California law which grants people with developmental disabilities an entitlement to services and supports.</p> <h3> LEVEL 14 GROUP HOME PLACEMENTS</h3> <p> Level 14 refers to a rate classification that reflects the staffing needs of an individual in Community Care Licensing Facilities. 14 is the highest rate available.</p> <h3> “LPS” or LANTERMAN-PETRIS-SHORT ACT</h3> <p> The Lanterman-Petris-Short Act is one of the main California laws governing services to and treatment of people with mental illness. It covers certain conservatorship proceedings as well as establishes that persons are statutorily entitled to individualized treatment that is least restrictive of their personal liberties.</p> <h3> <strong>MANIFESTATION DETERMINATION</strong></h3> <p> The manifestation determination meeting is a meeting of the relevant members of the IEP team to determine whether a child with a disability may be expelled or have his placement changed for more than 10 consecutive school days. At the meeting, the IEP team reviews the relevant information from the student’s file, including the IEP and any information from teachers and the parents and then decides two things: 1) was the behavior caused by, or did it have a direct and substantial relationship to, the child’s disability, and 2) was the behavior the direct result of the school’s failure to implement the IEP? If the team answers yes to either question, the child cannot be expelled and a placement change would require the consent of the parent or a hearing officer’s order. If the IEP team members representing the school district believe the answer to both questions is “no” and the parent disagrees, the parent can appeal to a special education hearing.</p> <h3> MEDI-CAL (See Medicare)</h3> <p> Medi-Cal is California's program to pay for medical care for many low income people, especially families, children, people with disabilities, and the elderly. Medi-Cal is funded by the state and federal government. There are many Medi-Cal programs with different rules. Depending on which program you qualify for and how much money you make, Medi-Cal may pay for all your medical expenses or only part of them.</p> <h3> MEDICARE (See Medi-Cal)</h3> <p> Medicare is a federal health insurance program which provides benefits for eligible people. There are two parts to the program: "Part A" is hospital insurance and "Part B" is medical insurance. Medicare does not cover everything, and is not free for most people. </p> <h3> MOTION</h3> <p> An oral or written request made by a party to an lawsuit before, during, or after a trial asking the judge to issue a ruling or order in that party's favor.</p> <h3> “MSSP” or MULTIPURPOSE SENIOR SERVICES PROGRAM </h3> <p> The Multipurpose Senior Services Program (MSSP), operated by the California Department of Aging, provides case management and a range of services to assist seniors with disabilities to live independently. </p> <h3> NURSING FACILITY WAIVER</h3> <p> The Nursing Facility Waiver allows someone who is otherwise eligible for nursing facility services to instead receive services in the community. It is called a "Waiver" because it waives certain federal Medicaid rules in order to provide different or more services than the State offers to other Medicaid (Medi-Cal) eligible people. </p> <h3> “OCRA” or OFFICE OF CLIENT’S RIGHTS</h3> <h3> “ODD” or OPPOSITIONAL DEFIANT DISORDER</h3> <p> Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) is a type of disruptive behavior disorder characterized by a recurrent pattern of defiant, hostile, disobedient, and negativistic behavior directed toward those in authority, including such actions as defying the requests or rules of adults, deliberately annoying others, arguing, spitefulness, and vindictiveness that occur much more frequently than would be expected on the basis of age and developmental stage. </p> <h3> OPINION</h3> <p> A judge's written explanation of a decision of the court or of a majority of judges. A dissenting opinion disagrees with the majority opinion because of the reasoning and/or the principles of law on which the decision is based. A concurring opinion agrees with the decision of the court but offers further comment. A <em>PER CURIAM</em> OPINION is an unsigned opinion “of the court.”</p> <h3> “OPR” or OFFICE OF PATIENT’S RIGHTS</h3> <h3> ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE</h3> <p> A court order that makes someone go to court to explain to the judge why he or she did not follow the rules.</p> <h3> “PAAT” or PROTECTION & ADVOCACY FOR ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY</h3> <p> Beginning in 1998, Disability Rights California received limited funds under the Protection and Advocacy for Assistive Technology (PAAT) Act to increase access to assistive devices and equipment.</p> <h3> “PABBS” or PROTECTION & ADVOCACY FOR BENEFICIARIES OF SOCIAL SECURITY</h3> <p> Under the Protection and Advocacy for Beneficiaries of Social Security (PABSS) Act, Disability Rights California provides advocacy assistance to Beneficiaries of Social Security Disability or Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and to people who are working and are beneficiaries of Medicare, Medi-Cal or In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) about securing or requiring employment. </p> <h3> “PADD” or PROTECTION & ADVOCACY FOR DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES</h3> <p> In 1978, Disability Rights California became the agency in California responsible for protecting and advocating for the rights of people with developmental disabilities under the federal Developmentally Disabled Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 1978. </p> <h3> “PAIMI” or PROTECTION & ADVOCACY FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH MENTAL ILLNESS</h3> <p> The Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act of 1986 (PAIMI) extended Disability Rights California’s mandate to people with psychiatric disabilities. </p> <h3> “PAIR” or PROTECTION & ADVOCACY FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS</h3> <p> The Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights Act of 1992 (PAIR) extended Disability Rights California’s mandate to people with physical, learning and sensory disabilities. </p> <h3> “PASRR” or PREADMISSIONS SCREENING AND RESIDENT REVIEW </h3> <p> This is a federally mandated psychosocial, psychiatric and physical evaluation of persons admitted to nursing facilities or at risk of being placed in nursing facilities, funded by the Department of Mental Health and administered by independent contractors. It helps identify the need for specialized services and helps identify appropriate community placements rather than institutionalization.</p> <h3> “PATBI” or PROTECTION & ADVOCACY FOR TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY</h3> <p> Protection & Advocacy for Individuals with Traumatic Brain Injury (PATBI<strong>) </strong>assures that people with traumatic brain injury receive appropriate services and supports within their own communities. Disability Rights California promotes the rights of people with Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) through advocacy assistance, education, and outreach to build TBI community awareness and support for inclusion. This program was established by federal grants from the Department of Health and Human Services.</p> <h3> “PAVA” or PROTECTION & ADVOCACY FOR VOTING ACCESS</h3> <p> Part of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) was the Protection and Advocacy for Voting Access (PAVA) program. PAVA expanded Disability Rights California’s ability to work for full participation in the electoral process for people with disabilities, including registering to vote, casting a vote and accessing polling places.</p> <h3> <em>PRO BONO</em></h3> <p> Legal work done for free. From the Latin meaning "for the public good." Private firms often work with Disability Rights California “<em>pro bono</em>” – without charge to clients.</p> <h3> <em>PRO PER</em></h3> <p> People who present their own cases in court without lawyers (<em>See</em> also <em>IN PROPIA PERSONA</em> and <em>PRO SE</em>.)</p> <h3> <em>PRO SE</em></h3> <p> People who present their own cases in court without lawyers (See also PRO PER and PRO SE.)</p> <h3> PROTECTIVE SUPERVISION</h3> <p> Protective supervision is supervision for individuals who, because of cognitive or mental impairments, need continuous supervision in order to prevent self-inflicted harm while living at home.</p> <h3> PURCHASE OF SERVICES (POS)</h3> <p> Purchase of Services (POS) dollars is money used by people served under the Lanterman Act. It allows the person with a developmental disability to directly pay service providers.</p> <h3> RIESE HEARING</h3> <p> A hearing to determine an individual’s capacity to refuse administration of psychotropic medication.</p> <h3> REGIONAL CENTERS</h3> <p> Non-profit corporations which, under the provisions of the Lanterman Act, contract with the Department of Developmental Services to provide service coordination to individuals with developmental disabilities and assist people to obtain the supports they need. There are 21 Regional Center s in California, each serving a different geographical area.</p> <h3> SECTION 8</h3> <p> Section 8 is a federally funded housing assistance program that provides to low income families. The vouchers allow the family to rent any apartment or house where the landlord will accept them, and pay a limited amount of money, generally 30% of the family’s income. Section 8 is operated by local housing authorities and usually has a long waiting list.</p> <h3> SELF-DIRECTED SERVICES</h3> <p> “Self-Directed Services” is a new model for providing services to people with developmental disabilities that allows them to manage their own budgets and gives them more control over providers. </p> <h3> “SELPA” OR SPECIAL EDUCATION LOCAL PLAN AREA</h3> <p> The Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA) is an administrative unit under California law that joins together one or more local school districts in a geographic area. This allows districts to share in the coordination, funding, personnel or other administration of services for special education students. School districts with large populations usually stand alone as a single-district SELPA. </p> <h3> “SGA” or SUBSTANTIAL GAINFUL ACTIVITY</h3> <p> Substantial Gainful Activity is the term used by Social Security when evaluating earned income and “work activity” of individuals applying for or receiving disability benefits. </p><p> There are two criteria that determine SGA: (1) Substantial activity: work that involves doing significant physical or mental work, or a combination of both, that is productive and for profit. (2) Gainful work activity: work performed for pay or profit; work of a nature generally performed for pay or profit; or work intended for profit, whether or not a profit is realized.</p><p> This is a monthly amount that is specified by Social Security for individuals who are employed or self-employed. SGA may be determined by work done or hours worked in a month. Monthly SGA earnings limits are adjusted annually based on fluctuations in the national average wage index.</p> <h3> “SRO” OR SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY</h3> <p> Single room occupancy hotels, or residency hotels, provide single room apartments with shared bathrooms for low income individuals. This is an important source of housing for people with disabilities who live on fixed incomes.</p> <h3> “SSI” OR SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME</h3> <p> Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a cash benefit program for low-income people 65 and over and for people of any age, including infants and children, who are blind or have disabilities. CAPI is a similar program for immigrants who do not qualify for SSI.</p> <h3> STATUTE</h3> <p> A law passed by the United States Congress or a state legislature.</p> <h3> STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS</h3> <p> A law that says how much time you have to file a lawsuit after something happens.</p> <h3> STAY</h3> <p> An order by a court that stops any further action in the case for a certain period of time.</p> <h3> SUMMARY JUDGMENT</h3> <p> When the judge decides a case without going to trial. The decision is based on the papers filed by both sides.</p> <h3> TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (TRO)</h3> <p> A Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) is a court order requiring immediate action. It is an emergency remedy of brief duration issued by a court only in exceptional circumstances, usually when immediate or irreparable damages or loss might result before the opposition could take action. </p> <h3> “TBS” or THERAPEUTIC BEHAVIORAL SERVICES</h3> <p> Therapeutic Behavioral Services (TBS) is a Medi-Cal mental health service. It provides short-term one-to-one assistance to children or youth under age 21 who have behaviors that are too hard for their families or foster placement to handle, such as tantrums, assaultive behavior or destruction of property. TBS can be provided to children at home, in a group home, in the community, during evening and weekends, and at other times and places as needed. The county mental health plan develops a behavior intervention plan and assigns a trained behavior aide to a child/youth for as many hours per day as needed. The county may also authorize another mental health organization to develop the plan and assign the behavior aide. </p> <h3> TRANSCRIPT</h3> <p> A record of everything that is said in a deposition, hearing or trial. Transcripts may be prepared from tape recordings or may be done by certified court reporters that use special equipment to make a word-for-word record of the proceeding.</p> <h3> “TWP” or TRIAL WORK PERIOD</h3> <p> A “Trial Work Period” under Social Security Disability law allows people with disabilities to test their ability to work for at least 9 months without reducing their Social Security Disability Income. During the TWP, an individual will receive full SSDI benefits regardless of how high their earnings might be, so long as they have a disability.</p> <h3> UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT</h3> <p> This law provides protection from discrimination by all business establishments in California, including housing and public accommodations, because of age, ancestry, color, disability, national origin, race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.</p> <h3> WRIT</h3> <p> A court order that says certain action must be taken.</p> <h3> WRIT OF MANDATE</h3> <p> A court order to a government agency, including another court, or to a private entity requiring it to follow the law by correcting its prior actions, ceasing illegal acts, or taking certain actions.</p> <h1><a name="_Toc246248347" id="_Toc246248347"></a><a name="_Toc246832126" id="_Toc246832126">TABLE OF CONTENTS</a></h1> <p class="MsoToc1"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832077">ABUSE AND NEGLECT<span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'>. </span><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'>1</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc2"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832078">Investigations Unit Investigates Three Recent Suicides in State Hospitals Following Disability Rights California’s Report to California Department of Mental Health Regarding Prior Suicides<span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline: none'> </span><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none; text-underline:none'>1</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc1"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832079">BENEFITS WORKGROUP<span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline: none'>. </span><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline: none'>2</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc2"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832080">Judge Prohibits In-Home Support Services (IHSS) Functional Index Cuts<span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'> </span><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'>2</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc2"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832081">Lawsuit Filed Against State to Ensure that People Receiving In-Home Supportive Services Get Required Notice<span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none; text-underline:none'> </span><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration: none;text-underline:none'>4</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc2"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832082">Judge Halts Cuts to the Adult Day Health Care Program<span style='color:windowtext; text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'>.. </span><span style='color:windowtext; text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'>6</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc2"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832083">P.D. Found Eligible for SSI Back to October 2003<span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration: none;text-underline:none'>. </span><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration: none;text-underline:none'>7</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc2"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832084">Disability Rights California Helps Client Obtain Repairs to Wheelchair<span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'> </span><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'>8</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc2"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832085">J.B. Obtains Communication Assistive Technology Device Through California Children’s Services (CCS)<span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline: none'> </span><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline: none'>9</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc2"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832086">Court Approved Class Settlement in Martinez, the “Fleeing Felons” Case.<span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'> </span><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'>10</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc2"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832087">One-Year-Old Moved from Early Start to Regional Center Eligibility and Qualified for Medi-Cal through DD Waiver<span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline: none'> </span><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline: none'>12</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc2"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832088">Disability Rights California Joins other Amici in Signing on to an Amicus Curiae Letter Seeking California Supreme Court Review of the Adverse Appellate Decision in <i>Watkins, et al, v. County of Alameda, et al.</i><span style='color:windowtext; text-decoration:none;text-underline:none;font-style:normal'> </span><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'>13</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc1"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832089">DISCRIMINATION WORKGROUP<span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline: none'>. </span><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline: none'>15</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc2"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832090">Disability Rights California Joins Legal Services of Northern California in Litigation Attempting to Restore Accessible Features in an Apartment Occupied by a Person who Uses a Wheelchair<span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none; text-underline:none'> </span><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration: none;text-underline:none'>15</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc2"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832091">Disability Rights California Brings Lawsuit to Stop Sacramento County Jail from Restraining All Inmates and Pre-Trial Detainees Who Receive Dialysis Treatments<span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'> </span><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'>16</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc2"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832092">Disability Rights California Assists Client in Obtaining Service Dog Documentation from Psychiatrist<span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline: none'> </span><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline: none'>16</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc2"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832093">Settlement Conference Held in Service Dog Case against Kaiser as Parties Move Closer to Settlement<span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline: none'> </span><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline: none'>17</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc2"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832094">Disability Rights California Assists County Nurse to be Allowed to Use Her Service Dog at Hospital where She Works<span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none; text-underline:none'> </span><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration: none;text-underline:none'>17</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc2"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832095">Settlement Allows a Student with Autism to Participate in Exchange Program<span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'> </span><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'>18</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc2"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832096">Disability Rights California helps Client Obtain Repairs to his Wheelchair<span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'> </span><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'>19</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc2"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832097"><i>See “Disability Rights California Helps Client Obtain Repairs to Wheelchair”, page 7.</i><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none; font-style:normal'> </span><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none; text-underline:none'>19</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc2"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832098">Disability Rights California Files a Successful Amicus Request for Publication of Important Employment Discrimination Appeal.<span style='color:windowtext; text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'> </span><span style='color:windowtext; text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'>19</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc1"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832099">LANTERMAN WORKGROUP<span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline: none'>. </span><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline: none'>20</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc2"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832100">Regional Center Agrees to Provide Legal Help with Citizenship to Assist V.S. in Returning to Her Parents’ Home<span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration: none;text-underline:none'> </span><span style='color:windowtext; text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'>20</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc2"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832101">Appeal Filed in the California Court of Appeals, Sixth District, to Appeal Denial of Eligibility for Regional Center Services for Adult with a Developmental Disability<span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline: none'> </span><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none; text-underline:none'>21</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc2"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832102">Regional Center Funds Assessments and Provides Gap Funding for Physical Therapy<span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'> </span><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'>22</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc2"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832103">Regional Center Consumer’s Eligibility Termination is Revoked<span style='color:windowtext; text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'>. </span><span style='color:windowtext; text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'>22</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc2"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832104">Disability Rights California Successfully Challenges Due Process Violations Resulting from Regional Center Terminations of Eligibility and Terminations and Reductions of Respite and other Suspended Services<span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration: none;text-underline:none'>. </span><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration: none;text-underline:none'>23</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc2"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832105">Disability Rights California Challenges Due Process Violations Resulting from Regional Center Terminations and Reductions of Services for Children in the “Early Start” Program<span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline: none'> </span><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none; text-underline:none'>25</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc2"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832106">Disability Rights California Uses Its Access Authority to Obtain Name and Contact Information of a Child with a Developmental Disability<span style='color:windowtext; text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'> </span><span style='color: windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'>26</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc2"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832107">Disability Rights California Files Writ to Challenge Regional Center’s Denial of Eligibility to Child with Autism<span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration: none;text-underline:none'> </span><span style='color:windowtext; text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'>27</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc1"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832108">MENTAL HEALTH WORKGROUP<span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline: none'>. </span><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline: none'>27</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc2"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832109">Disability Rights California Helps Metropolitan State Hospital Resident Move to Less-Restrictive Setting<span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none; text-underline:none'> </span><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration: none;text-underline:none'>27</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc2"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832110">Disability Rights California Seeks Improved Access under its Federal Authority<span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'> </span><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'>28</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc2"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832111"><i>Disability Rights California v. Sunbridge Braswell Enterprises, Inc. dba Sierra Vista Rehabilitation Center;</i><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none; text-underline:none;font-style:normal'> </span><span style='color:windowtext; text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'>28</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc2"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832112">Case No. CV-09-3664 VBF (FFMx), Federal District Court, Central District of California, Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank, filed May 22, 2009.<span style='color:windowtext; text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'> </span><span style='color:windowtext; text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'>28</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc2"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832113">Disability Rights California Assists Individual in Contesting Conservatorship and Disablement of Rights Including Consent to Medical Treatment<span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'> </span><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'>29</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc2"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832114">Disability Rights California Comments on Emergency Regulation Proposal by Department of Mental Health<span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline: none'> </span><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none; text-underline:none'>30</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc2"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832115">Disability Rights California Presents on Pre-Admission Screening and Resident Review at Patients’ Rights Advocacy Training<span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration: none;text-underline:none'> </span><span style='color:windowtext; text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'>31</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc2"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832116">Disability Rights California Presents on Procedures for Filing Medi-Cal Specialty Mental Health Grievances, Appeals, and Requests for Fair Hearing at Patients’ Rights Advocacy Training<span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline: none'> </span><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none; text-underline:none'>32</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc2"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832117">Disability Rights California Provides Training on Immigrant Rights to Patients’ Rights Advocates<span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline: none'> </span><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none; text-underline:none'>32</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc1"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832118">EDUCATION for Children and Youth<span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none; text-underline:none'>. </span><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration: none;text-underline:none'>33</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc2"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832119">Student Obtains Classification of “Autism” for Special Education Eligibility.<span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'> </span><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'>33</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc2"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832120">Student Receives AB 3632 Services and Avoids Expulsion<span style='color:windowtext; text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'>. </span><span style='color:windowtext; text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'>33</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc2"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832121">Student Allowed to Participate in Graduation Ceremony<span style='color:windowtext; text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'>. </span><span style='color:windowtext; text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'>34</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc1"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832122">VOTING ISSUE TEAM<span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'>.. </span><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'>35</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc2"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832123">Disability Rights California Participates in the Los Angeles County Voting Systems Assessment Project<span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none; text-underline:none'> </span><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration: none;text-underline:none'>35</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc2"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832124">Disability Rights California Comments on Election Assistance Commission’s Voting System Guidelines<span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline: none'> </span><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none; text-underline:none'>36</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc1"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832125">GLOSSARY OF SELECTED TERMS<span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline: none'>. </span><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline: none'>39</span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoToc1"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="#_Toc246832126">TABLE OF CONTENTS<span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'>. </span><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'>58</span></a></span></p> <p> </p> </div> <div id="footer"></div> <div id="footer_text"> <ul> <li>All Rights Reserved @ 2005 </li> <li>Last Updated:February 12, 2010 </li> <li><a href="../sitecredits.htm">Site Credits</a> </li> <li><a href="/feeds.htm"><img src="/images/rssbutton1.png" width="15" height="15" /> RSS Feeds</a> </li> <li><a href="mailto:Info@pai-ca.org">Info@pai-ca.org</a> </li>February 12, 2010.719.5798 </li> <li><a href="../disclaimer.htm">disclaimer</a></li> </ul> </div> </div> </div> </div> <script type="text/javascript"> var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www."); document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E")); </script> <script type="text/javascript"> var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-750765-2"); pageTracker._trackPageview(); </script> </body> </html>