ABUSE AND NEGLECT

Investigations Unit Releases Report Finding Abuse by Nursing Home Staff Not Treated As Crimes

See Previous Regional Office Reports, Issues No. 59, 54, and 52.

The Investigations Unit released a 40 page report, “Victimized Twice: Abuse of Nursing Home Residents, No Criminal Accountability for Perpetrators.” This report describes 12 cases investigated by Disability Rights California involving nine men and seven women, age 41 to 97, with physical, mental, and cognitive disabilities, who were physically and sexually abused by facility staff. Some cases include:

• A 41 year-old man was struck in the mouth with a closed fist by a staff member and then slapped. Bleeding from a cut on his lip, he told staff about the assault. The facility delayed for days before reporting. Prosecutors refused to take the case because they lacked physical evidence.
• An activity assistant shoved and then released two elderly women sitting in wheelchairs. They sailed down the corridor and slammed into the wall where they sat, immobile and stranded.
• While assisting a female resident with her bath, a male aide fondled her breasts. She complained to the facility administrator but, two days later, the aide came back to work and was assigned to the same residents. When he confronted the woman for telling on him, she felt afraid.
• A man with fragile, tissue paper like skin was forced into a whirlpool bath. His skin tore in three places as he was getting in, and one tear went from his wrist to his armpit. A visitor heard his screams and reported the abuse. Facility staff contend they did nothing wrong.
• A middle aged resident with cerebral palsy and a cognitive impairment was paraded naked and soaking wet back to his room in front of others after being forced by staff to take cold showers. An elderly resident at the same facility was repeatedly pinched on the nipples and penis, the skin on his arms was twisted, and he was forced to eat feces from his adult briefs. The abuse went on for months and was witnessed by other staff who did nothing. None of the staff involved were prosecuted.

The abuse ranged from punching or hitting in the face to repeated sexual assaults and allegations of rape. Some involved multiple victims and occurred over months, while others were one-time incidents.

Investigators concluded that incidents whose facts are indicative of a crime were handled not as criminal matters but as licensing or employee concerns. Nearly half of the cases were never reported to law enforcement. The bulk went to long-term care ombudsmen who, under federal law, cannot also report to law enforcement or prosecutors unless the victim gives consent. Few residents do.

Criminal charges were filed by local district attorneys in only three cases, two of which involved the same defendant who abused two different residents. In the end, in the cases prosecuted, felony charges were reduced to misdemeanor offenses, and sentences were minimal.

The report makes important recommendations to ensure that crimes against nursing home residents are promptly reported and investigated. Priorities include amending state law to require that all incidents of abuse and neglect are reported immediately to law enforcement; challenging the Bureau of Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse to take a leadership role in focusing on nursing home resident abuse and criminal prosecution; developing a system for tracking abusive case staff; and holding nursing home administrators responsible when abuse is not reported as required.

A complete copy of the report can be located at http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/pubs/548801.pdf .

Abuse & Neglect Goal 1, Obj. A
Disability Rights California Staff: Pamila Lew, Ricardo Jauregui, Leslie Morrison, Jung Pham
Grant/Funding Source(s): PAIMI/PAIR/Trust Fund

BENEFITS

Harry Cota et. al. v. David Maxwell-Jolly, Department of Health Care Services

Case No. C-09-03798 SBA, Federal District Court, Northern District of Calif., Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong (2010 WL 693256 (N.D. Cal. 2010))

See Previous Regional Office Reports, Issues No. 58 and 59

On February 24, 2010, Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong issued an expansive ruling granting Plaintiffs’ second motion for a preliminary injunction in Cota v. Maxwell-Jolly. (Formerly entitled Brantley et. al v. Maxwell-Jolly; Lillie Brantley passed away in February, 2010, and the case name changed to Cota v. Maxwell-Jolly).

Plaintiffs filed their second motion in the case on January 19, 2010, challenging new restrictions limiting eligibility for Adult Day Health Care Services (ADHC) that were targeted to go into effect on March 1. ADHC is a Medi-Cal funded community-based program for low income seniors and younger adults with disabilities that provides a variety of services, including therapeutic, social, and skilled nursing services designed to maintain individuals in their own homes and avoid institutionalization. Approximately 37,000 Californians across the state participate in the program.

The new eligibility restrictions would have terminated ADHC services for approximately 15,000 current participants, all of whom had been determined to need ADHC to avoid hospitalization or other institutionalization without ADHC. 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; the Medicaid Act; and the U.S. Constitution. The Court found that Plaintiffs had shown a likelihood of success on all of their legal claims and that Plaintiffs and putative class members would be irreparably harmed if an injunction were not granted.

Citing its earlier order in Brantley, the Court once again ruled that “the reduction or elimination of public medical benefits is sufficient to establish irreparable harm to those likely to be affected by the program cuts.” Moreover, the Court noted that “Given the purpose of the new law, it is axiomatic that in order to have any significant impact on the State’s budget, the curtailment of ADHC services arguably will be dramatic. As such, it is somewhat disingenuous for Defendants to downplay the impact of the proposed changes by suggesting that only “some” individuals will lose their ADHC services….As this Court recognized previously, Plaintiffs need not wait until the harm is actually suffered before seeking injunctive relief.”

The State has appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 10-15635.

Benefits Goal 2, Obj. A; Goal 3, Obj. A
Anti-Discrimination Goal 1, Obj.A
Disability Rights California Staff: Elissa Gershon, Elizabeth Zirker, Kim Swain, Dara Schur.
Other Counsel: AARP Foundation Litigation, National Senior Citizens Law Center, National Health Law Program, Howrey LLP.
Grant/Funding Source(s): PAIR/PAIMI

Administrative Law Judge Waives $69,706 SSDI Overpayment

D.E., a person with Schizophrenia and Stage Four Pancreatic Cancer, is a former SSDI recipient who currently receives SSI and, since 1985, has worked intermittently as her adult son’s In-Home Support Services provider. D.E. reported her employment to SSA, who assured her that she could work and continue to receive SSDI as long as she reported her wages.

In 2000, SSA determined that D.E. continued to be disabled under the SSDI program rules. In 2004, D.E. received a Notice of Underpayment as well as retroactive SSDI for 2001 and 2002. Two years later, however, D.E. received a Notice of Overpayment in the amount of $69,706 for SSDI payments spanning from 1999 through 2006. However, the Notice did not assert any evidence that D.E. had in fact been overpaid or that the alleged overpayment amount was accurate.

D.E. filed a Request for Waiver of the Overpayment which was denied. She then appealed that decision and filed a Request for Hearing before an administrative law judge. Disability Rights California represented D.E. at the hearing.

In SSDI overpayment cases, SSA has the initial burden of establishing by substantial evidence the fact and amount of the overpayment before it collects repayment from the SSDI recipient. If Social Security meets its burden, then the SSDI recipient must show that a waiver of the overpayment should be granted because he or she was not at fault in creating the overpayment and either it would cause a financial hardship to pay the money back or repayment would be against equity and good conscience. Hardship is presumed when the claimant is an SSI recipient as was D.E.

At the hearing, Disability Rights California presented evidence in the form of Social Security Work Activity Reports and the Underpayment Notice as well as D.E.’s own testimony, that she was not at fault in causing an overpayment because over the years she had reported her IHSS employment as required by Social Security and also relied on numerous Social Security assurances that her employment would not affect her SSDI. Disability Rights California also presented evidence that the Overpayment Notice did not meet due process requirements because it merely asserted that D.E. had been overpaid without any proof.

The ALJ found that SSA did not meet its burden, that D.E. was not at fault in causing the alleged overpayment, and that repayment would be both a financial hardship and against equity and good conscience. As a result, the ALJ ordered the entire alleged $69,706 overpayment waived.

Benefits Goal 1, Obj. A
Disability Rights California Staff: Hillary Sklar, Jerri Ward, Tim Poe, Debbie Dorfman, Maria Iriarte
Grant/Funding Source(s): PAIR

Merced County Restores Protective Supervision to Monolingual Spanish Speaker

J.S. v. Merced County In Home Supportive Services, Case No. 093420090, Administrative Law Judge Michael Kanz

J.S. is a person with Rubenstein-Taybi syndrome, a developmental disability, and a member of a monolingual Spanish speaking family, whose protective supervision services were terminated by the county despite clear evidence that he could not live safely in his home without constant monitoring. Disability Rights California represented J.S. at a fair hearing in February 2010. The administrative law judge ruled that Merced County improperly denied protective supervision and awarded J.S. protective supervision and eight months of retroactive benefits totaling roughly $13,000.

Benefits Goal 1, Obj. A
Disability Rights California Staff: Andrew Berk, Agnes Williams, Sujatha Branch, Maria Iriarte.
Grant/Funding Source(s): PADD

PACE Termination Case Reveals Potential Program-Wide Attempts to Discharge Clients Based on Erroneous Discretionary Standards

M.S., who uses a walker, received notice on December 23, 2009, that her services from the Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) administered by On Lok Lifeways (On Lok) would be terminated as of January 31, 2010. M.S. sought the assistance of Disability Rights California for representation at the termination hearing scheduled for March 11, 2010. Disability Rights California obtained an independent expert to do an assessment of M.S. and reviewed her extensive medical history.

At the hearing, Disability Rights California argued that On Lok had failed to provide evidence that M.S.’s health condition had improved to the point of justifying her termination from PACE. Disability Rights California also provided compelling evidence that M.S.’s health condition met 9 out of 10 eligibility criteria for participation in PACE. Despite strong evidence in favor of M.S., the administrative law judge (ALJ) focused on the lack of clarity within the PACE regulations and held that M.S.’s conditions taken as a whole did not rise to a level that met the need for out-of-home placement with 24-hour supervision or observation. We are currently considering whether to appeal the decision.

As a result of this hearing and Disability Rights California’s advocacy efforts before it, we have taken an active role with other public interest organizations to provide training and guidance to ALJs on the eligibility rules that govern PACE. The goal is to provide ALJs with a proper understanding of the complicated and ambiguous PACE regulations so that future PACE termination cases can be decided on the proper level of care criteria.

In the meantime, Disability Rights California is assisting M.S. in obtaining alternate services including through the Adult Day Health Care Program.

Benefits Goal 2, Obj. A
Disability Rights Staff: Elizabeth Zirker, Jung Pham
Grant/Funding Source(s): PAAT

County IHSS Office Terminated Services for D.G. in Violation of a Federal Court Order

D.G., an In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) recipient, was terminated from the program in November 2009. D.G. did not receive a termination notice of action (NOA) and only found out about the termination when his provider told him that she had received a letter saying D.G. was ineligible for services. D.G. appealed and contacted Disability Rights California, with the help of an advocate from the Independent Living Center Berkeley (ILCB), to request help preparing for the administrative hearing.

Disability Rights California spoke with the provider and contacted the program director for the county IHSS program to inform the director that D.G. was not provided adequate notice of his termination. Disability Rights California also demanded that the program director confirm whether D.G. was a class member of the V.L. v. Wagner lawsuit, which enjoined the state’s proposed IHSS reductions. D.G. was found to have been terminated in violation of this order and his services were immediately reinstated.

Disability Rights California coordinated with the program director and D.G.’s provider for additional time-sheets and retro-active payment so that D.G. could pay for the two months that his provider performed IHSS services for D.G. without compensation. The ILCB withdrew its IHSS appeal on D.G.’s behalf due to the favorable outcome. Disability Rights California asked the program director to notify it of additional terminations within the county system that would put the state in violation of the court order.

Benefits Goal 2, Obj. A
Disability Rights Staff: Jung Pham
Grant/Funding Source(s): PAIR

Client Continues on No Share of Cost Medi-Cal

M.C is a person with physical disabilities who for the past two years had been receiving no share of cost Medi-Cal. When her son turned 18 years old, the county sent M.C. a notice of action informing her that she now had a monthly $200 Medi-Cal share of cost. M.C. contacted Disability Rights California for help.

Disability Rights California was able get M.C. back on a no share of cost program by showing the county that M.C.’s countable income qualified for her for the Medi-Cal Aged & Disabled Federal Poverty Level program.

Benefits Goal 2, Obj. A
Grant/Funding Source(s): PAIR

After More Than a Year, A.D. Finally Gets Her Retroactive Social Security Check

See Previous Regional Office Report, Issue No. 55

Disability Rights California successfully represented A.D at an SSA hearing regarding an overpayment. The administrative law judge (ALJ) agreed that her work activity was an unsuccessful work attempt and ordered her benefits reinstated retroactively. About one year later, A.D. contacted Disability Rights California because she still had not received her retroactive payment.

Disability Rights California helped A.D. write a letter to her congressional representative stating the facts of her case, her efforts to get information about her retroactive benefits, and the local office’s non-responsiveness to her inquiries. Shortly after contacting her congressional representative, without any notice, Social Security deposited $4,400 into her checking account, which represented the benefits owed to her. A.D. was able to use this money to pay bills and is now working towards a new career.

Benefits Goal 1, Obj. A
Disability Rights Staff: Aleyda Toruno
Grant Funding: PABSS

A PASS Participant Gets His Certificate of Graduation

J.W., a person with a psychiatric disability, was participating in the Plan for Achieving Self-Support (PASS) plan, which allows a person with a disability to set aside otherwise countable income and/or resources for a specific period of time in order to achieve a work goal, to help obtain a Bachelor's degree.

In the process of assisting J.W. with his PASS issue, he informed staff that he had been unable to get his graduation certificate for Alcohol and Drug Counseling from the school he had attended. However, it was never made clear to him why he was unable to receive his certificate. Staff agreed to request J.W.’s school records to determine if Disability Rights California could assist him to get his graduation certificate. After reviewing his records, staff contacted the school to discuss the matter, prompting it to send him J.W. his graduation certificate without an explanation as to why it had withheld the certificate in the first place. Disability Rights California will continue to work with J.W. on his PASS issue.

Benefits Goal 1, Obj. A
Disability Rights Staff: Aleyda Toruno
Grant/Funding Source(s): PABSS

J.R. Gets His Income Tax Refund Back After S.S.A. Illegally Garnished It

J.R. was receiving SSI benefits due to his psychiatric disability. Social Security found that he had medically improved and notified him that his benefits would terminate. He appealed. He eventually attended a hearing in front of an administrative law judge who issued an unfavorable decision. JR sought assistance from another organization to pursue an appeal of the judge’s decision.

In the meantime, J.R. continued to receive SSI benefits. He was eventually charged with an overpayment because his benefits continued after an unfavorable hearing decision. J.R. filed a request for a waiver of the overpayment.

SSA scheduled a personal conference with J.R at which it denied the waiver. J.R. agreed to make monthly payments of $10.00 to repay the overpayment and he appealed the waiver denial.

Before it came time to make his first $10.00 payment, SSA garnished his income tax refund. When he asked SSA why it intercepted his refund in light of the agreement they had to pay $10.00 per month, he was told that nothing could be done and that he needed to speak to the IRS. J.R. contacted Disability Rights California for assistance.

The Treasury Offset Program (TOP) enables the Department of Treasury to recover an individual’s delinquent SSA debt by offsetting any federal payment due to an individual. TOP then credits SSA with the amount collected. However, under SSA guidelines, since J.R. had filed a waiver and an appeal of the waiver denial, his debt should not have been referred to TOP.

After several unresponsive calls and letters to the local Social Security office, Disability Rights California contacted the Social Security Regional Public Affairs office. Soon after this call, the local Social Security office agreed to refund J.R. the money it collected through TOP.

Benefits Goal 1, Obj. A
Disability Rights Staff: Aleyda Toruno
Grant/Funding Source(s): PAIMI

Client’s Overpayment Issue is Resolved

A.Z., a person with cancer and orthopedic disabilities, received an SSI overpayment notice from SSA, claiming that he had excess resources. A.Z. appealed and contacted Disability Rights California for assistance.

The resource in question was a bank account that belonged to A.Z.’s girlfriend over which he had power of attorney to access to pay her bills when she was out of the country. Disability Rights California assisted A.Z. in gathering the evidence necessary to show SSA that he was not the owner of the account and did not have access to it other than to pay bills. At a meeting, A.Z. provided SSA with documentation supporting his position. The SSA representative told A.Z. that it appeared that he was in fact not the owner of the account and that the issue was resolved. A.Z. is waiting to get written confirmation from SSA.

Benefit Goal 4, Obj. C
Disability Rights California Staff: Crystal Padilla
Grant/Funding Source(s): PAIR

DISCRIMINATION

Favorable Settlement Reached In Housing Discrimination Case

Hyatt v. Northern California Presbyterian Homes and Services, Inc., et al.

Case No. 4:08-CV-03265 PJH U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, the Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton.

See Previous Regional office Report, Issue No. 52

Disability Rights California joined the AARP Foundation Litigation in a fair Housing lawsuit in federal court centered around allegations of disability-related discrimination at a senior living facility when the facility placed restrictions on residents’ use of walkers at the buffet. After extensive negotiations, the parties settled the case; the specific terms of the agreement are confidential. The facility later amended its dining room procedures to allow residents to use their walkers at the buffet.

Discrimination Goal 2, Obj. A
Disability Rights California Staff: Pamela Cohen, Fred Nisen, Stuart Seaborn and Barbara Dickey
Co-Counsel: Susan Ann Silverstein and Barbara Jones from the AARP Foundation Litigation
Grant(s)/Funding Source(s): PAAT

Catholic Charities Agrees to Train Its Staff Regarding the Rights of People With Disabilities to Use Service Animals

M.B. is a person who has a severe hearing impairment and uses the services of a hearing dog, a Chihuahua, which she has trained to alert her to sounds. In November, 2009, M.B. was homeless and attempted to get shelter at Rachel’s Place, a shelter for homeless woman run by Catholic Charities that receives federal funds. She was told that her dog was not permitted at the shelter.

Disability Rights California investigated the case and contacted Catholic Charities requesting that they offer Client shelter, that they adopt an adequate service dog policy, and that they adequately train staff on the policy.

Catholic Charities provided evidence that they had a policy in place but it was clear that the staff was not adequately trained on the policy. Catholic Charities agreed that (1) the shelter would be available to the client and her service dog if she was in need in the future; and (2) that they would engage Disability Rights California to train staff on the rights of people with disabilities to service dog access at homeless shelters.

Discrimination Goal 2, Obj. A
Disability Rights California Staff: Ann Menasche
Grant(s)/Funding Source(s): PAIR

Clubhouse Agrees to Admit Mental Health Client’s Service Dog

A.R. is a person with a mental disability who has self-trained a psychiatric service dog to come to him, nudge him, and make bodily contact anytime he is experiencing depression or other psychiatric symptoms. The managers of “The Meeting Place”, a local clubhouse that serves San Diego’s mental health community, refused to allow the client’s service dog to accompany him to there.

Disability Rights California contacted the managers both by phone and through letter, setting forth A.R. rights under the ADA and state law to be accompanied by his service animal and requested they allow his service dog into the clubhouse. After some hesitation, the managers agreed in writing to admit the client’s service dog.

Discrimination Goal 3, Obj. A
Disability Rights California Staff: Ann Menasche
Grant(s)/Funding Source(s): PAIMI

Disability Rights California Helps Client with Vision Disability Gain Access to Cable TV

G.P., a person with a visual disability who lives in an assisted living facility for seniors, was not able to access the cable TV in the facility. Although the assisted living facility has a basic cable contract, G.P. received a digital converter box from the cable company so he could receive the new digital signal on his older television. Unfortunately, the G.P.’s oversized universal remote control, which he needs because of his vision disability, was unable to communicate with the converter. Disability Rights California spoke to a customer relations representative at the cable company about the issue, who agreed that G.P. could have a different converter box that would allow his enlarged universal remote to work.

Discrimination Goal 3, Obj. A
Disability Rights California Staff: Bill Hershon and Fred Nisen
Grant(s)/Funding Source(s): PAIR

Disability Rights California Assists University Student Get Re-Admitted Back into Program from Suspension After Repeated Refusals

A student with Asperger’s Syndrome, who attends a public university, was suspended by the university after an altercation in January of 2009 with another student. The student was alleged to have lunged at the other student with a pen at the university library, scraping the other student’s skin. After a school disciplinary hearing, the student was suspended under terms that he could be readmitted on September 23, 2009 provided he: 1) be accompanied by a 1-to-1 aide while on campus, 2) attend a course of therapy and function appropriately in a university setting, and 3) agree to be on probation until graduation.

On September 23, 2009, the university was still unresponsive to OCRA’s numerous attempts to discuss compliance with the re-admission criteria, only stating that M.R. had not met the criteria for readmission but refusing to let OCRA know exactly what the student needed to do to comply. At this point, Disability Rights California intervened and when Disability Rights California informed the school that it would file an Office of Civil Rights complaint that the university finally decided to communicate about the exact steps for the student to take to meet the readmission criteria.

After months-long negotiations between Disability Rights California and the university’s administrators and attorney, the student was finally readmitted back into the program on December 19, 2009. During the negotiations with the university, Disability Rights California also obtained evaluations and written verification from a therapist and a behaviorist that the student would be able to function appropriately in the school setting. Disability Rights California also arranged to have the Regional Center pay for those evaluations as well as assist the student with finding an aide with experience in working with individuals with Aspergers in the academic setting.

Discrimination Goal 3, Obj. A
Disability Rights California Staff: Jung Pham
Grant(s)/Funding Source(s): PADD

Disability Rights California Assists Client in Negotiating Changes in Contract with Residential Services Provider as an Accommodation for her Psychiatric Disabilities.

C.J. has multiple psychiatric disabilities, including schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, and an anxiety disorder, as well as a substance abuse disorder. She receives housing and services from a residential treatment program through the Shelter Plus Care program. The client approached Disability Rights California because she had concerns about a new lodging agreement that the program’s management was asking her to sign. The Client was particularly concerned about provisions that would have required her to meet with program staff in her room, and to allow her room to be cleaned and her linens to be laundered on a weekly basis.

Disability Rights California staff met with the client to explain the agreement to her in detail, clearing up some misunderstandings about other parts of the agreement. Staff also facilitated a telephone conversation with the client and the director of the program, in which they were able to negotiate a revised agreement providing for the following: (1) the client will allow specifically-named program staff to inspect her room for compliance with program rules and the rental subsidy agreement, at first on a weekly basis and, after the first month, on a bi-weekly basis; (2) the client will allow her room to be cleaned on a monthly basis; and (3) the client will be responsible for washing her own linens. The agreement became effective in early April.

Discrimination Goal 2, Obj. A
Disability Rights California Staff: Pamela Cohen
Grant(s)/Funding Source(s): PAIMI

Disability Rights California Assists Client to Obtain an Apartment with a Private Bathroom as a Reasonable Accommodation

D.R. has psychiatric and physical disabilities, including fibromyalgia and depression. She lives in senior housing in which she had to share a bathroom with a neighbor, who happened to be male. The bathroom does not have a sink, and when she contacted Disability Rights California, the bathtub was in disrepair. The stress of this situation aggravated the client’s disabilities. Through Disability Rights California’s advocacy, the bathtub has been repaired, and the client has been placed first on a waiting list to receive an apartment with a private bathroom. The building management has told her that an apartment should be available for her by the end of May, 2010.

Discrimination Goal 2, Obj. A
Disability Rights California Staff: Pamela Cohen
Grant(s)/Funding Source(s): PAIMI

Client in Low Income Senior Housing Allowed to Use Her Motorized Scooter

Disability Rights California was contacted by a woman living in a low income senior housing complex who uses a mobility scooter. Recently, a new community manager barred the client from riding her scooter on the sidewalks within the community, thus limiting her ability to bring the scooter inside to charge the battery.

Disability Rights California sent a letter to the community manager outlining the reasonable accommodation requirement under the Federal Fair Housing Act. In response to the letter, the Regional Property Supervisor for the community sent a letter to Disability Rights California stating that a reasonable accommodation is not required because many residents of the community require use of scooters in the community and their ability to do so has never been limited. The client, then, received a letter from the Regional Property Supervisor stating that she can use her scooter as needed throughout the community.

Discrimination Goal 2, Obj. A
Disability Rights California Staff: Taymour Ravandi and Liza Thantranon (law clerk)
Grant(s)/Funding Source(s): PAIR

Disability Rights California Negotiates with Department of Mental Health to Accommodate Transgender Female State Hospital Resident with Facial Hair Removal Cream

Disability Rights California was contacted by a transgender woman with HIV at one of the State Hospitals, seeking assistance in obtaining Vaniqa, a facial hair removal cream, as an accommodation to her disability. Due to the HIV medications T.B. takes, her skin has become thin, which causes her to bleed if she shaves her face. As a result, T.B. requested the use of a facial hair removal cream, which a dermatologist had prescribed. However, the hospital refused to fill this prescription because it was too costly.

With advice from Disability Rights California, the client wrote a letter, based on Title II of the ADA, to the hospital’s medical director to have the Vaniqa filled as a reasonable accommodation for her disability. The client never received a response from her request. Disability Rights California requested a meeting with the hospital’s executive director. On November 16, 2009, Disability Rights California met with the Hospital’s Executive Director, along with one of the Department of Mental Health (DMH)’s senior attorneys and other hospital staff. The Director of the California Office of Patients’ Rights also attended this meeting.

On January 12, 2010, Disability Rights California sent a follow-up letter to the DMH senior attorney outlining the client’s request for Vaniqa and the justification for such a request based on a right to medical treatment under state regulations and as a reasonable accommodation under Title II of the ADA. On February 24, 2010, the DMH senior attorney sent a responding letter granting the client’s request to provide Vaniqa at the hospital’s expense.

Discrimination Goal 3, Obj. A
Mental Health Goal 1, Obj. A
Disability Rights California Staff: Sean Rashkis and Norma Lianci
Grant(s)/Funding Source(s): PAIMI

Eviction Prevented Following Demand Letter to Federally Subsidized Landlord

An adult client with a developmental disability and her teenage child live in a 3-bedroom home under a HUD program designed to provide housing to low income people with disabilities, administered by the regional center. The client received a letter from her landlord that her teenage child must move out of his bedroom under HUD rules and that the landlord must rent out the child’s room to another adult with a developmental disability. The client’s goal was to permit her child to remain in his bedroom and not be forced to either share a room with the mother or live in a common living area. Disability Rights California sent a demand letter to the landlord that the intended actions stated in the eviction letter was in violation of the current lease and HUD regulations which prohibit requiring older children of the opposite sex from sharing a bedroom with a parent or another adult. The demand letter also stated that the landlord’s requirement that a stranger move in could be a basis for a lawsuit under the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The attorney for the landlord rescinded the eviction letter, and the lease for the client and her child remains in place.

Discrimination Goal 2, Obj. A
Lanterman Goal 2, Obj. A
Disability Rights California Staff: Timothy Poe, Jay Kozlofsky, Dara Schur
Grant(s)/Funding Source(s): PADD

Comments Submitted on Proposed DFEH Regulations

The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) published proposed regulations on their procedures for handling complaints. DFEH is the state agency that investigates and acts on alleged violations of major state civil rights laws, including violations of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, the Unruh Act, and the Ralph Act. The proposed regulations govern how they do intake and handle, process, settle, and prosecute complaints.

Disability Rights California submitted comments on the proposed regulation in conjunction with the Fair Housing Law Project of the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, California Rural Legal Assistance, and the National Housing Law Project. Our comments noted that while we were generally pleased with their efforts to involve the public in developing the regulations, issues with the regulations included failure to be clear about disability accommodations and language access, overly broad medical records requests, inadequate confidentially concerns, the need for more training for staff, and other concerns about the complaint process.

Discrimination Goal 6
Disability Rights California Staff: Dara Schur, Fred Nisen, Stuart Seaborn, Jay Koslofsky
Collaborators: Fair Housing Law Project of the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, California Rural Legal Assistance, and the National Housing Law Project
Grant/Funding Source: Unrestricted, Federal Split

EDUCATION

2 Year-Old Receives Compensatory Services Due to IRC Failure to Provide Aid Paid Pending

K. K. v. IRC, OAH No. 2009100017

See Previous Regional Office Report, Issue No. 59

K. K. is a two year-old with both developmental and physical disabilities, including Down Syndrome who has been receiving early intervention services from a regional center since birth. Physical therapy services have been a part of K.K.’s Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) at least since October of 2008.

In September 2009, the regional center verbally advised K.K.’s mother that, effective October 1, 2009, it would be terminating K.K.’s physical therapy (PT) services because the recent California budget legislation required families to use alternative sources of private insurance or Medi-Cal to pay for them. The regional center never provided written notice of this termination.

K.K.’s mother timely filed a Due Process Hearing Request on September 24, 2009 to challenge the regional center’s decision to terminate physical therapy sessions for K.K. and requested on-going services pending the resolution of the due process hearing. However, the regional center failed to continue to provide physical therapy services pursuant to the “stay put” provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the California Early Intervention Services Act (CEISA) pending the resolution of the Due Process Hearing and instead terminated physical therapy services on October 1, 2009. It was not until October 18, 2009 that the regional center finally agreed to authorize continuing physical therapy services pending the resolution of the Due Process Hearing.

Since K.K. was left without any physical therapy services and continued to have a need for them, in November 2009, K.K.’s mother, on her own, secured another provider for physical therapy services which was funded by Medi-Cal. The assessment done by the new physical therapy provider indicated that K.K. was in need of one hour of physical therapy per week, not 2 hours per month, which was the amount that the regional center had previously authorized.

K.K.’s mother filed a request for hearing in pro per. We filed a motion requesting leave to file an amended due process complaint and the Office of Administrative Hearings granted our motion on January 4, 2010. The hearing was rescheduled for March 16, 2010.

As a result of Disability Rights California’s work, on March 9, 2010, the regional center agreed to:

1. Provide 3 hours of compensatory PT services to K.K. for the time period between when it terminated his PT services and when K.K.’s mother was able to secure services through Medi-Cal.
2. Change the IFSP to reflect K.K.’s need for physical therapy services at the rate of one one-hour session per week, based on the most recent assessment.
3. Fund the physical therapy services if and when there are gaps in insurance or Medi-Cal authorizations.

Education Goal 1, Obj. A
Disability Rights California Staff: Debbie Dorfman, Connie Huang, Brigitte Ammons
Grant/Funding Source(s): PADD

Youth in Juvenile Hall Receives Appropriate Special Education and Mental Health Services

R.C. was a 17 year old who was residing at Camp Challenger, a camp program run by the Los Angeles Department of Probation. R.C. had received special education services for most of his life and, most recently, as a student with Emotional Disturbance (ED) and Other Health Impairment (ADHD). The Department of Mental Health also has found that he is eligible for mental health services under AB 3632, a state law that requires county departments of mental health to work together with school districts to provide mental health services to youth receiving special education. Before entering the delinquency system, R.C. was residing in a residential placement funded through AB 3632.

The Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE), which provides educational services for youth in the camp, failed to hold an Individualized Educational Program (IEP) meeting for R.C. within 30 days of him entering the camp, as it is required by law to do. Before Disability Rights California’s involvement, R.C. was not receiving appropriate special education services and supports; in particular, LACOE was failing to implement R.C.’s Behavior Support Plan (BSP). As a result, R.C. had significant behaviors in the classroom setting, and had been suspended for more than 40 days during his time at Camp Challenger.

R.C. was later moved to Central Juvenile Hall where he was eventually placed in the Collaborative, Assessment, Rehabilitation and Education (C.A.R.E.) unit, a specialized unit for youth with mental health needs within Central Juvenile Hall. Disability Rights California represented R.C. at more than five IEP meetings and advocated for a Functional Analysis Assessment (FAA) to be conducted and for the development of a Behavioral Intervention Plan (BIP) to address R.C.’s serious behaviors. Disability Rights California’s advocacy also resulted in R.C. receiving mental health services including group therapy three times per week, individual therapy one time per week, and school based counseling one time per week.

After receiving appropriate special education and mental health services, R.C.’s behavior in the hall significantly improved and he did not have any other suspensions.

Education Goal 1, Obj. A
Disability Rights California Staff: Carmen Varela, Connie Huang, Candis Watson Bowles
Grant/Funding Source(s): PADD, EA

Internal School District Complaint Filed to Expunge Special Education Student’s Inappropriate Discipline Record.

R.K.-S. v. Rocklin Unified School District

A special education student with Autism was suspended for 2 days after he posted a note on Facebook at home, after school hours, and not related to school. The note did not cause a disruption to school activities.

As part of the student’s IEP, the school district was to provide instruction on appropriate social networking. Disability Rights California filed a request to the school district to appeal the suspension, since students without disabilities do not have their non-school related social networking communications used as a basis of discipline and therefore the school district was discriminating against the student based on his disability.

In addition, there was no nexus between the behavior and a school activity or consequence and the online posting is likely protected speech because California law provides for the same level of protection of speech in its schools as the 1st amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides to adults.

The school administration denied our request to expunge the discipline record, so we requested a meeting with the Superintendent of the School District pursuant to state law. After attending an IEP meeting and negotiating with the School District's attorneys the Superintendent agreed to expunge the discipline record.

Education Goal 1, Obj. A
Disability Rights California Staff: Will Schell
Grant/Funding Source(s): EA Children and Young Adult Initiative

LANTERMAN

64 Year-Old Regional Center Client Keeps Attendant Care Services

C. O. is a 64 year-old man who receives services from a regional center as a client with mental retardation and epilepsy. C.O. has also been diagnosed with hypertension, depression, and anxiety and requires assistance with completing most of his activities of daily living including bathing, shaving, dressing, and brushing his teeth. He also is incontinent and uses diapers. He uses a manual wheelchair for mobility and needs assistance with maneuvering his wheelchair both inside the facility and in the community. Since October 2008, he has been a resident of a skilled nursing facility.

Every Sunday, C.O. visits his sister and his elderly mother in the family home. His sister is the sole caretaker of their mother, who is 85 years-old and has a variety of medical conditions. Their mother uses a wheelchair, uses diapers, has had several strokes, and has a heart condition as well as diabetes and dementia.

For the past two years, C.O. has received up to twenty-six hours of attendant care services during his visits home with his sister and mother. Due to his epilepsy and behaviors, he needs a person to monitor him during the ride to ensure his safety. In addition, the attendant provides assistance to bring his wheelchair up the ramp, into the home, and for transferring out of his wheelchair. During the visit, the attendant assists with changing his diaper, helps him use the toilet, ensures that he takes his medication, and assists him with desired tasks such as clipping coupons. Since C.O.’s sister is the sole caregiver for their mother, she cannot provide him with all of the assistance that he needs during his visit.

On November 6, 2009, the regional center sent a Notice of Proposed Action proposing to terminate these attendant care services, stating as its reason for action: “[C.O.] resides in a skill [sic] nursing facility which provides 24/7 care.” C.O.’s sister (and authorized representative) filed a Request for Fair Hearing and he continued to receive services while he was waiting for the hearing.

An informal meeting was scheduled for April 8, 2010 between C.O.’s authorized representative and the regional center contract officer. On April 2, 2010, Disability Rights California sent letter to the regional center contract administrator and contract officer requesting that the regional center rescind its Notice of Proposed Action dated November 6, 2009 and allow C.O. to keep the attendant care services that are crucial to enabling him to visit with his elderly mother and his sister each Sunday.

On April 6, 2010, the regional center contract officer contacted C.O.’s representative and Disability Rights California staff and agreed to continue funding C.O.’s attendant care services. C.O.’s attendant care services remain in place.

Lanterman Goal 3, Objective A
Disability Rights California Staff: Connie Huang
Grant/Funding Source(s): PADD

Regional Center Client Avoids Eviction, Placed in Appropriate Group Home

S.F. is a 20 year-old regional center client with mental retardation, mental illness, and disruptive and impulsive behaviors. She was a ward of the dependency court until July 2009, when jurisdiction was terminated. Although she was 20 years-old, through a waiver, she continued to reside in a placement, a group home, which primarily serves children. On September 2, 2009, the regional center sent S.F.’s grandmother (and conservator) a 30-day notice terminating funding for the placement, stating that S.F. no longer required the level of care provided at the group home. The regional center never held an Individual Program Plan (IPP) meeting to discuss S.F.’s needs or to propose a change in placement.

On September 25, 2009, the regional center sent the group home a notice advising that it would terminate supplemental funding for S.F.’s placement. As a result, on October 15, 2009, the group home then sent a notice to S.F.’s grandmother advising that the regional center would terminate funding and incorrectly advised her that she had the responsibility to speak with the regional center to try to obtain funding. This notice warned that if the group home did not receive a written approval from the regional center for continued funding, the group home would terminate the placement as of October 31, 2009, provide someone to transport S.F. and her belongings, and return S.F. to her grandmother’s care.

S.F.’s grandmother was very concerned about S.F. being evicted from the group home and being moved to her home because she was not equipped to address S.F.’s significant behavioral issues. In addition, she was concerned about the possibility of S.F. being placed in a new group home that was located far from the non-public school that she was attending and where she was doing well.

After Disability Rights California staff spoke to the regional center and the group home, they agreed to allow S.F. to stay until an IPP meeting could be held. Disability Rights California staff represented the client at the IPP meeting where attendees discussed client’s need for independent living skills, age appropriate peers, and an appropriate discharge plan. The conservator agreed to visit a small group home of five adult women, to determine if it was appropriate for S.F. The regional center and the group home agreed to develop and implement a discharge plan once an appropriate placement was agreed upon.

S.F.’s grandmother reported that on December 26, 2009, S.F. moved to another placement and is doing very well. Her new placement is located only a few miles from her school that she continues to attend.

Lanterman Goal 3, Obj. A
Disability Rights California Staff: Connie Huang Grant/Funding Source(s): EA - Children and Young Adult Initiative

Disability Rights California Staff Obtain In-Home Behavioral Services and Respite on behalf of 4-Year-Old Regional Center Client.

A regional center denied in-home behavioral services and respite to K.S., a 4-year-old boy with autism, failed to provide his parents with written notice of the denial and information on how to appeal the denial, and failed to address the parents’ request for the services in the written IPP document. Disability Rights California sent a demand letter to the regional center on K.S.’s behalf and represented him at a new IPP meeting. The demand letter explained that the client’s placement in the home was at risk due to the urgent need for behavioral services and how K.S. client met the criteria for additional respite hours due to extraordinary family events as well as his severe behavioral needs. Following receipt of this demand letter, the regional center held an emergency IPP meeting in which Disability Rights California represented K.S. At the conclusion of the IPP meeting, the regional center agreed to provide both the behavioral services and respite, which K.S. is currently receiving.

Lanterman Goal 3, Obj. A
Disability Rights California Staff: Timothy Poe
Grant/Funding Source(s): PADD

Eviction Prevented Following Demand Letter to Federally Subsidized Landlord

See Discrimination section.

Disability Rights California Successfully Advocates on Behalf of Child to Save his in-home Nursing Services

D.K., a 10-year old boy with a developmental disability, was medically fragile as a result of a neuro-degenerative disease. Because of his extensive medical needs, D.K. required in-home nursing care in order for him to remain safely in the community and in his parents’ home. In January of 2010, D.K.’s parents contacted Disability Rights California to seek assistance after the Regional Center informed the parents it would terminate funding for D.K.’s in-home nursing services without notice because the regional center wanted them instead to use In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS). Disability Rights California attended a meeting with the parents and the regional center and successfully advocated on behalf of D.K. to get the regional center to withdraw its intent to terminate the funding for D.K.’s nursing services and agreed to the ongoing funding of these crucial nursing services indefinitely at the level determined to be medically necessary. Sadly, D. K. passed away in early April of 2010.

Lanterman Goal 3, Obj. A
Disability Rights California Staff: Deborah Dorfman
Grant/Funding Source(s): PADD

Disability Rights California Successfully Advocates on Behalf of Child to Maintain Additional Nursing Services

In addition to having problems with his regional center, D.K., referenced above, also had problems with his father’s private insurance regarding funding of additional in-home nursing services, not covered by the regional center. The private insurer, in error, failed to pay for the additional in-home nursing services. Disability Rights California intervened and was able to resolve the issue for D.K. so that all of his services were paid for fully and appropriately.

Lanterman Goal 3, Obj. A
Disability Rights California Staff: Marilyn Holle, Deborah Dorfman
Grant/Funding Source(s): PADD

MENTAL HEALTH

Disability Rights California Files Class Action Lawsuit Challenging Cuts to Out-patient Mental Health Services in Sacramento County

Napper, et al. v. County of Sacramento, et al.

Case No. 2:10-CV-01119-JAM-(EFB) (Filed May 6, 2010). U.S. District Court, Eastern District

Disability Rights California, the Western Center on Law and Poverty, and the firm of Cooley LLP jointly filed a class action lawsuit, on behalf of five named plaintiffs, to enjoin the closure and/or drastic reduction of mental health outpatient services to over 5,000 individuals with psychiatric disabilities in Sacramento County. The action, Napper, et al. v. County of Sacramento, et al., seeks to stop the cuts and was filed in federal court, Eastern District of California, on May 6, 2010.

Several heavily used mental health outpatient clinics in Sacramento are slated to be closed due to budget cuts. The County’s current plan is to drop the contracted services, known as regional support teams and TCORE, and drastically cut funding for the Wellness and Recovery Centers, by June 30, and to open replacement services for the estimated 5,000 mental health clients by July 1, using county operated clinics and staff. A final vote on the plan is schedule before the County Board of Supervisors on June 15.

The complaint alleges that the new plan, to terminate and shift all services to county operated clinics, is being done without adequate notification to clients or a plan and time to transition clients to the newly configured services. Further, since the county operated clinics will be far more expensive than the current scheme, the change will result in a drastic reduction in mental health services that clients have come to rely on to keep them in the community. Current non-profit contractors provide a full range of individualized services, including medication management, one-on-one therapy, case coordination, crisis intervention, counseling, group therapy, and education classes. Without these services and the supports, plaintiffs, and the thousands of class members they represent, will be placed in imminent risk to their health and safety, including institutionalization in hospital emergency rooms, psychiatric facilities, or jail.

The case alleges violations of both federal and state law, including under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, federal Medicaid law, California Government Code § 11135, and due process under the Constitution. The complaint alleges that Defendants’ actions violate the integration mandate under Olmstead by terminating community-based services and placing plaintiffs and class members at risk of institutionalization. A motion for preliminary injunction has yet to be filed.

Mental Health Goal 3, Obj. A
Disability Rights California Staff: Melinda Bird, Stuart Seaborn, Suzanna Gee, Sean Rashkis, Will Schell, Ann Coller, Jay Koslofsky, and Kim Swain
Grant/ Funding Source: PAIMI

San Diego Medi-Cal Recipient Wins Additional Psychotherapy Sessions

E.D. is a person with a mental disability who was denied eight additional psychotherapy sessions through her Medi-Cal managed care plan, based on a “cap” on the number of sessions imposed by San Diego County in response to state budget cuts. E.D.’s treating psychologist documented that the additional sessions were medically necessary and that in the absence of such sessions, E.D. was at risk for possible suicide, hospitalization, and decompensation.

Disability Rights California helped E.D. appeal through the County Mental Health Managed Care Plan and hired a psychologist, Dr. Glenn Lipson, to evaluate E.D. Dr. Lipson prepared a detailed report further documenting the need for continued psychotherapy. Disability Rights California also requested a state hearing on E.D.’s behalf, requesting that she continue to receive treatment pending the hearing decision or other resolution of the case, on a theory known as “Aid Paid Pending.”

San Diego County at first refused to grant Aid Paid Pending claiming that these services were no longer required under Medi-Cal. On March 16, 2010, Disability Rights California wrote a letter to the Chief Administrative Law Judge requesting that Aid Paid Pending be ordered. The letter set forth state and federal laws and regulations that mandate that medically necessary care be provided under the Mental Health plan including psychotherapy. That same day, the judge ordered the County to issue Aid Paid Pending.

On March 15, 2010, the independent consultant reviewing the case for the Plan agreed that the additional sessions requested were medically necessary and should be granted. On March 19, 2010, the County of San Diego agreed to accept the recommendations of the consultant.

Mental Health Goal 3, Obj. A
Disability Rights California Staff: Ann Menasche
Grant/Funding Source: PAIMI

Disability Rights California Negotiates with Department of Mental Health to Accommodate Transgender Female State Hospital Resident with Facial Hair Removal Cream

See Discrimination Section.

California Supreme Court Upholds Attorney’s Authority to Waive Client’s Rights in Conservatorship Hearings

San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. John L.

California Supreme Court Case No. S157151

See Previous Regional Office Report, Issue No. 53

On February 25, 2010, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. John L. upholding the authority of an attorney to waive in the client’s absence the appearance and all procedural and substantive rights of a client at a hearing to establish a Conservatorship under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS). Disability Rights California had submitted an amicus brief arguing that the plain language and legislative history of the LPS Act and amendments to the Probate code make clear that the statutes do not authorize an attorney to waive appearance at the establishment of conservatorship hearing. The California Association of Mental Health Patient’s Rights Advocates (CAMPHRA) also submitted an amicus in support of John L., contending that there was no knowing and intelligent waiver of rights.

The Supreme Court rejected both of these arguments, holding that judicial reliance on an attorney’s unsworn statements in court regarding a proposed conservatee’s waiver of presence and trial rights was proper. The Court found that the right to attend the civil commitment hearing was statutory and not constitutional as it would be in a criminal case, and therefore the proposed conservatee may waive the right through counsel. The Court relied on Code of Civil Procedure section 283 that gives general authority to an attorney to bind a client in any of the steps of the an action. The Court further found that “the value of requiring an unwilling proposed conservatee to appear before the court is too slight to justify its adoption as part of the conservatorship process.”

Mental Health Goal 2
Disability Rights California Staff: Ann Menasche
Grant/Funding Source: PAIMI

Disability Rights California Participates in California Mental Health Advocacy Conference Panel on Eliminating Stigma and Discrimination in the Mental Health System

Disability Rights California was recently asked to participate in a panel at the California Mental Health Advocacy Conference in Los Angeles. The Conference was founded on the recovery vision of the Mental Health Services Act, particularly the mission to empower mental health consumers and stakeholders to combat stigma and discrimination in mental health services and in the community. On April 15, 2010, Kevin Bayley and Matt Fishler of the Los Angeles Regional Office, along with Ron Schraiber (Director of the Office of Consumer Affairs for the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health) presented a panel discussion entitled Human Rights, Dignity, and Legal Rights in the Mental Health System.

During the course of the panel, Disability Rights California attorneys discussed issues related to the right to voluntary services under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, and a variety of legal resources and state and federal remedies available to consumers who have experienced disability-based discrimination. In addition, Disability Rights California distributed approximately 80 copies of Disability Rights California’s Publication, Voluntary Services as Alternative to Involuntary Detention under the LPS Act. Disability Rights California also gathered information from conference participants regarding issues of importance to consumers, including opposition to involuntary outpatient treatment and rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Approximately 100 individuals attended the presentation.

Mental Health Goal 4, Obj. B
Disability Rights California Staff: Kevin Bayley and Matt Fishler
Grant/Funding Source(s): PAIMI

VOTING

Disability Rights California Testifies before the Los Angeles City Council Regarding Vote by Mail Only elections

In response to a request from several members of the Los Angeles City Council, the LA City Clerk put together a report regarding the feasibility of the city changing to all Vote By Mail (VBM) elections. Disability Rights California staff sent a letter to the City Council and also testified at a meeting of the City Council's Rules and Elections Committee regarding the disenfranchising effects that change could have on voters with disabilities. Disability Rights California emphasized that some individuals exercise their right to a confidential ballot using a VBM ballot and that it would be important to have a sufficient number of fully accessible neighborhood voting centers set up along transit corridors to allow these voters with disabilities to cast their ballots.

Recently, the Clerk's office completed a revision of the report, which does not offer a recommendation as to whether or not the city should make a change to VBM elections. Disability Rights California will continue to monitor the progress of the issue at the Committee and Council levels and will attempt to ensure that the perspective of voters with disabilities is taken into account.

Discrimination Goal 4, Obj. B
Disability Rights California Staff: Kevin Bayley

Disability Rights California Steps Up Its Efforts to Ensure Poll Site Accessibility Compliance in Los Angeles County

To ensure that voters with disabilities are able to effectively access the polls and cast a confidential ballot, Disability Rights California has initiated a series of meetings with the Election Division of the Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters office. At the meetings that have taken place, Disability Rights California was given an opportunity to review the equipment obtained by the Registrar to improve the accessibility of otherwise inaccessible poll sites. The equipment included ramps, mats, and doorbells. Disability Rights California provided feedback to the Registrar’s staff about the equipment including guidelines for proper placement of the equipment to ensure compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Disability Rights California also met with Polling Place Operations staff who are in charge of developing poll worker training materials. Disability Rights California also held a Registrar’s Poll Worker Supervisor training in anticipation of the June 8^th California Primary Election. During the meeting and the training, Disability Rights California provided a mini-training to the attendees about disability etiquette and the rights of voters with disabilities. As a result, the Registrar asked Disability Rights California to develop a train-the-trainer training for the Polling Place Operations staff for the November 2010 General Election and also asked Disability Rights California to provide additional feedback to improve its poll worker training written and video materials.

In addition, Disability Rights California joined the recently formed Registrar’s Polling Place Operations Subcommittee of the Voters Community Voter Outreach Committee as well as the Voter Accessibility Advisory Committee (VAAC) which focuses solely on disability issues. The VAAC will work closely with Registrar staff in charge of selecting poll sites for the November 2010 General Election.

Discrimination Goal 4, Obj. B
Disability Rights California Staff: Hillary Sklar, Kevin Bayley, Scott Barron

El Dorado County Agrees to Discontinue Using Poll Sites That Were Deemed Inaccessible Based on Recommendation by Disability Rights California

See Previous Regional Office Report, Issue No. 57

Disability Rights California gathered information and generated a report from surveys that trained poll monitor volunteers completed after observing poll sites across El Dorado County. In our report, we categorized the monitored poll sites into three categories: 1) poll sites that were completely accessible; 2) poll sites that could be made accessible if mitigating measures were used; and 3) poll sites that were not accessible, regardless of mitigating measures. For poll sites that required mitigating measures, we took the additional step of providing recommendations to the County on measures we believed would assist in making particular poll sites accessible.

We provided the report to the County election officials and met with the County to discuss our findings. Through our advocacy effort, the County plans to make the recommended changes and has agreed to discontinue the use of poll sites that were identified in the report as inaccessible. We will continue our poll monitoring project and will train poll monitors to monitor the upcoming election on June 8, 2010.

Discrimination Goal 4, Obj. B
DRC staff: Lori Shepherd, Tho Vinh Banh, Nakida Gooden
Grant/Funding Source(s): PAVA

Disability Rights California Provided Training on Voting Rights to Hmong Americans with Developmental Disabilities

Disability Rights California provided a voting rights training to Hmong Americans with developmental disabilities and their staff members at a day program. Disability Rights California talked about why it is important to vote and explained to individuals at the day program who can register to vote and what information is needed to register. Disability Rights California let the audience members know that they can ask for help in order to register and exercise their voting right. Disability Rights California also explained the right to an accessible poll site for people with disabilities.

Discrimination Goal 5, Obj. B
Disability Rights California Staff: Tho Vinh Banh & Daniel Meadows
Grant/Funding Source(s): PAVA

Disability Rights California Holds Voting Training for Approximately 25 People with Cerebral Palsy in Oakland

On April 9, 2010, Disability Rights California staff conducted a voting training at the Cerebral Palsy Center, a day program for people with Cerebral Palsy. It was attended by about 25 program participants, plus five staff members. The training consisted of information regarding civic participation and the right to vote.

Discrimination Goal 5, Obj. B
Disability Rights California Staff: Daniel Meadows, Fred Nisen and Bill Hershon
Grant(s)/Funding Source(s): PAVA

GLOSSARY OF SELECTED TERMS

(Updated November 19, 2009)

“A&D FPL PROGRAM” or AGED & DISABLED FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL PROGRAM (Also referred to as the Medi-Cal 133% Program)

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.

AB 2726/3632 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)

“ADHD” or ATTENTION DEFICIT-HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER 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.

“ADR” or ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION Methods of resolving disputes without official court proceedings. These methods include MEDIATION and ARBITRATION.

AMICUS CURIAE 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.

ARBITRATION When a person that isn't involved in the case looks at the evidence, hears the arguments, and makes a decision.

BEHAVIOR INTERVENTION PLAN 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.

“BPAO” or BENEFITS, PLANNING, ASSISTANCE, AND OUTREACH 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:

• Provide work incentives planning and assistance to SSA`s beneficiaries with disabilities
• Conduct outreach efforts to those beneficiaries (and their families), who are potentially eligible to participate in Federal or State work incentives programs; and
• Work in cooperation with Federal, State, and private agencies and nonprofit organizations that serve beneficiaries with disabilities.

“BWE” or BLIND WORK EXPENSES If the Social Security Administration (SSA) considers you statutorily blind, 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.

CALWORKs “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.

“CDR” or CONTINUING DISABILITY REVIEW 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.

“CI” or COUNTABLE INCOME Countable Income is the amount of your income that is included in calculations to determine your eligibility for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits.

CLASS ACTION 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.

CONSERVATOR, CONSERVATEE and CONSERVATORSHIP 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.

“CASA” or COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES 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.

“CYA” or CALIFORNIA YOUTH AUTHORITY The California Youth Authority (CYA), a California State agency of facilities for youths who have committed serious offenses.

DAMAGES 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.

DECLARATION 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.

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT A judgment of the court that explains what the existing law is or expresses the opinion of the court without the need for enforcement.

DEMURRER 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.

DEPOSITION 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." (See also DISCOVERY.)

“DDS” or CA DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES The California Department of Developmental Services (DDS), which funds and oversees services to people with developmental disabilities in California.

“DFEH” or CA DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING 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.

“DHS” or CA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES The California Department of Health Services (DHS), which funds and oversees health services in California, including nursing home care and home care.

DISCOVERY 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.

DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE When a court dismisses a case and will not allow any other suit to be filed on the same claim in the future.

DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE When a court dismisses a case, but will allow other suits to be filed on the same claim.

“DMH” or CA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH The California Department of Mental Health (DMH), which funds and oversees mental health services in California.

“DOE” or DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

“DSS” or CA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 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.

DYSAUTONOMIA (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.

“EA” or EQUAL ACCESS Disability Rights California receives grants from the state Equal Access to Justice Program to serve indigent people with disabilities on specified projects.

ELLIS ACT 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.

EN BANC 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 "en banc" (sometimes spelled "in banc"). It comes from the French language and means "on the bench."

“EPSDT” or EARLY AND PERIODIC SCREENING, DIAGNOSIS, AND TREATMENT 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.

EXCEPTION PAYMENT “Exception Payment” is a subsidy above the amount usually allowed.

“EXR” or EXPEDITED REINSTATEMENT 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.

“EPE” or EXTENDED PERIOD OF ELIGIBILITY 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.

FAIR HEARING 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.

“FMR” or FAIR MARKET RENT 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.

“FIFTH CATEGORY” REGIONAL CENTER ELIGIBILITY 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.

FORENSIC 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.

“FAA” or FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS ASSESSMENT 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.

“G-TUBE” or GASTROSTOMY TUBE 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.

GUARDIAN AD LITEM 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."

GUARDIANSHIP 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.

HABEAS CORPUS A “writ of habeas corpus” 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.

“HHS” or HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES HHS is the federal agency overseeing health and human services.

“HIPAA” or HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT 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.

“HOUSING CHOICE VOICHER” OR “SECTION 8” 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.

“HUD” or U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 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.

“ICF-DD-N” or INTERMEDIATE CARE FACILITY DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED-NURSING 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.

“IDEA” or INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT 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).

“IEP” or INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAM 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.

“IHSS” or IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES PROGRAM 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.

“IMD” or INSTITUTION FOR MENTAL DISEASE 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.

IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITALITY The right to get an apartment in good condition.

IN-HOME OPERATIONS HOME AND COMMUNITY-BASED SERVICES (IHO-HCBS WAIVER) 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.

INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT (ICWA) 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.

INJUNCTION 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.

IN FORMA PAUPERIS (IFP) 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.”

IN PROPIA PERSONA (IN PRO PER) In Propia 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.)

INTERROGATORIES Written questions asked by one party in a lawsuit, which the opposing party must answer in writing.

INTERVENOR A person who voluntarily participates in a lawsuit or other proceeding brought by other people. The court must approve the participation of the intervener.

“IOLTA” or INTEREST ON LAWYERS TRUST ACCOUNTS 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.

“IPP” or INDIVIDUAL PROGRAM PLAN California’s Lanterman Act provides that persons with developmental disabilities are entitled to “IPPs,” or Individual Program Plans that identify 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.

“IRWE” or IMPAIRMENT RELATED WORK EXPENSES 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.

JUDGMENT (JUDGEMENT) The judge's final decision in a case.

LANTERMAN ACT The California law which grants people with developmental disabilities an entitlement to services and supports.

LEVEL 14 GROUP HOME PLACEMENTS 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.

“LPS” or LANTERMAN-PETRIS-SHORT ACT 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.

MANIFESTATION DETERMINATION 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.

MEDI-CAL (See Medicare) 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.

MEDICARE (See Medi-Cal) 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.

MOTION 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.

“MSSP” or MULTIPURPOSE SENIOR SERVICES PROGRAM 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.

NURSING FACILITY WAIVER 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.

“OCRA” or OFFICE OF CLIENT’S RIGHTS ADVOCACY

“ODD” or OPPOSITIONAL DEFIANT DISORDER 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.

OPINION 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 PER CURIAM OPINION is an unsigned opinion “of the court.”

“OPR” or OFFICE OF PATIENT’S RIGHTS

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE A court order that makes someone go to court to explain to the judge why he or she did not follow the rules.

“PAAT” or PROTECTION & ADVOCACY FOR ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY 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.

“PABBS” or PROTECTION & ADVOCACY FOR BENEFICIARIES OF SOCIAL SECURITY 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.

“PADD” or PROTECTION & ADVOCACY FOR DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES 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.

“PAIMI” or PROTECTION & ADVOCACY FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH MENTAL ILLNESS The Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act of 1986 (PAIMI) extended Disability Rights California’s mandate to people with psychiatric disabilities.

“PAIR” or PROTECTION & ADVOCACY FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS 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.

“PASRR” or PREADMISSIONS SCREENING AND RESIDENT REVIEW 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.

“PATBI” or PROTECTION & ADVOCACY FOR TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY Protection & Advocacy for Individuals with Traumatic Brain Injury (PATBI) 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.

“PAVA” or PROTECTION & ADVOCACY FOR VOTING ACCESS 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.

PRO BONO Legal work done for free. From the Latin meaning "for the public good." Private firms often work with Disability Rights California “pro bono” – without charge to clients.

PRO PER People who present their own cases in court without lawyers (See also IN PROPIA PERSONA and PRO SE.)

PRO SE People who present their own cases in court without lawyers (See also PRO PER and PRO SE.)

PROTECTIVE SUPERVISION 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.

PURCHASE OF SERVICES (POS) 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.

RIESE HEARING A hearing to determine an individual’s capacity to refuse administration of psychotropic medication.

REGIONAL CENTERS 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 Centers in California, each serving a different geographical area.

SECTION 8 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.

SELF-DIRECTED SERVICES “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.

“SELPA” OR SPECIAL EDUCATION LOCAL PLAN AREA 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.

“SGA” or SUBSTANTIAL GAINFUL ACTIVITY 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.

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.

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.

“SRO” OR SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY 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.

“SSI” OR SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME 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.

STATUTE A law passed by the United States Congress or a state legislature.

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A law that says how much time you have to file a lawsuit after something happens.

STAY An order by a court that stops any further action in the case for a certain period of time.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT When the judge decides a case without going to trial. The decision is based on the papers filed by both sides.

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (TRO) 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.

“TBS” or THERAPEUTIC BEHAVIORAL SERVICES 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.

TRANSCRIPT 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.

“TWP” or TRIAL WORK PERIOD 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.

UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 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.

WRIT A court order that says certain action must be taken.

WRIT OF MANDATE 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.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABUSE AND NEGLECT 1

Investigations Unit Releases Report Finding Abuse by Nursing Home Staff Not Treated As Crimes 1

BENEFITS 3

Harry Cota et. al. v. David Maxwell-Jolly, Department of Health Care Services 3

Administrative Law Judge Waives $69,706 SSDI Overpayment 4

Merced County Restores Protective Supervision to Monolingual Spanish Speaker 6

PACE Termination Case Reveals Potential Program-Wide Attempts to Discharge Clients Based on Erroneous Discretionary Standards 6

County IHSS Office Terminated Services for D.G. in Violation of a Federal Court Order 7

Client Continues on No Share of Cost Medi-Cal 8

After More Than a Year, A.D. Finally Gets Her Retroactive Social Security Check 8

A PASS Participant Gets His Certificate of Graduation 9

J.R. Gets His Income Tax Refund Back After S.S.A. Illegally Garnished It 10

Client’s Overpayment Issue is Resolved 11

DISCRIMINATION 11

Favorable Settlement Reached In Housing Discrimination Case 11

Catholic Charities Agrees to Train Its Staff Regarding the Rights of People With Disabilities to Use Service Animals 12

Clubhouse Agrees to Admit Mental Health Client’s Service Dog 12

Disability Rights California Helps Client with Vision Disability Gain Access to Cable TV 13

Disability Rights California Assists University Student Get Re-Admitted Back into Program from Suspension After Repeated Refusals 13

Disability Rights California Assists Client in Negotiating Changes in Contract with Residential Services Provider as an Accommodation for her Psychiatric Disabilities. 14

Disability Rights California Assists Client to Obtain an Apartment with a Private Bathroom as a Reasonable Accommodation 15

Client in Low Income Senior Housing Allowed to Use Her Motorized Scooter 16

Disability Rights California Negotiates with Department of Mental Health to Accommodate Transgender Female State Hospital Resident with Facial Hair Removal Cream 16

Eviction Prevented Following Demand Letter to Federally Subsidized Landlord 17

Comments Submitted on Proposed DFEH Regulations 18

EDUCATION 19

2 Year-Old Receives Compensatory Services Due to IRC Failure to Provide Aid Paid Pending 19

Youth in Juvenile Hall Receives Appropriate Special Education and Mental Health Services 20

Internal School District Complaint Filed to Expunge Special Education Student’s Inappropriate Discipline Record. 21

LANTERMAN 22

64 Year-Old Regional Center Client Keeps Attendant Care Services 22

Regional Center Client Avoids Eviction, Placed in Appropriate Group Home 23

Disability Rights California Staff Obtain In-Home Behavioral Services and Respite on behalf of 4-Year-Old Regional Center Client. 25

Eviction Prevented Following Demand Letter to Federally Subsidized Landlord 25

Disability Rights California Successfully Advocates on Behalf of Child to Save his in-home Nursing Services 25

Disability Rights California Successfully Advocates on Behalf of Child to Maintain Additional Nursing Services 26

MENTAL HEALTH 26

Disability Rights California Files Class Action Lawsuit Challenging Cuts to Out-patient Mental Health Services in Sacramento County 26

San Diego Medi-Cal Recipient Wins Additional Psychotherapy Sessions 28

Disability Rights California Negotiates with Department of Mental Health to Accommodate Transgender Female State Hospital Resident with Facial Hair Removal Cream 29

California Supreme Court Upholds Attorney’s Authority to Waive Client’s Rights in Conservatorship Hearings 29

Disability Rights California Participates in California Mental Health Advocacy Conference Panel on Eliminating Stigma and Discrimination in the Mental Health System 30

VOTING 31

Disability Rights California Testifies before the Los Angeles City Council Regarding Vote by Mail Only elections 31

Disability Rights California Steps Up Its Efforts to Ensure Poll Site Accessibility Compliance in Los Angeles County 31

El Dorado County Agrees to Discontinue Using Poll Sites That Were Deemed Inaccessible Based on Recommendation by Disability Rights California 32

Disability Rights California Provided Training on Voting Rights to Hmong Americans with Developmental Disabilities 33

Disability Rights California Holds Voting Training for Approximately 25 People with Cerebral Palsy in Oakland 33

GLOSSARY OF SELECTED TERMS 34