Director of Litigation’s Report on PAI’s Current Advocacy: Cases and Projects
SUMMER 2008 - Work as of
This report
represents a summary of the work PAI staff has reported from
PAI’s Investigations Unit (IU) reviews numerous Department of Public Health (DPH) licensing citations every month. Many of these citations describe abusive acts committed by staff against individuals with disabilities living in skilled nursing facilities. The citations do not always indicate whether these incidents are also reported under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act. Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) § 15600 et seq. The IU has initiated a project to determine whether incidents of abuse and neglect are reported as required, to whom, and whether they were investigated and criminally prosecuted. Cases the IU plans to open up include:
· A resident was forced into a whirlpool bath despite a large skin tear and over his adamant objection. The resident’s skin tore easily and he sustained a large tear from his armpit to his wrist during transfer to the bath. Staff forced him to remain in the bath despite his screaming to be removed. The resident described his level of pain from the tear as 10 on a scale of 1 to 10. He later described the incident as follows: “It was horrible. I had no control. I felt like I was drowning. I yelled to get out. They took their sweet time.”
· A nursing resident reported to two members of the housekeeping staff that she had been raped and identified the alleged perpetrator. The housekeeping staff notified the charge nurse, who failed to make an abuse report because she assumed the housekeeping staff had taken care of it and because “she was too busy.” It is unknown if the incident was ever reported to law enforcement or the ombudsman.
· On two separate instances, a staff member with a history of performance issues abruptly pushed frail, elderly residents who used wheelchairs and let go of them, sending the residents crashing against the wall. In both incidents, the residents were then left unattended against the wall despite requiring staff supervision and assistance in all activities of daily living.
· Two residents were physically assaulted by a “big” nurse’s aide. One resident was slapped across the face and told to “shut up” when he complained of being cold. Another resident was slapped on the hip when the aide was changing her briefs, leaving a painful red mark. When the resident complained, “Oh, you hurt me,” the aide paid no attention.
The IU’s investigation of an even more concerning case
revealed that while the facility followed appropriate procedures and the abuse
reporting law, in the end, the assailants were not criminally prosecuted. Two direct care staff had been observed
teasing and pinching a resident’s nipples and penis. The resident indicated that one of the direct
care staff took feces from his briefs and placed it in his mouth. The resident later identified the alleged
perpetrators. Three staff members who
witnessed the teasing and pinching reported the incidents to the facility
administrators who promptly notified the local Long Term Care Ombudsman and the
DPH. The Ombudsman informed the police
and the
Abuse & Neglect Goals and Objectives: Goal 1, Objective A
PAI Staff: Paul Duryea, Ricardo Jauregui, Pamila Lew, Leslie Morrison and Jung Pham
Grant/Funding Source(s): PAIR
M.
is an 18 month old child with disabilities, including oxygen dependence as a
result of her premature birth. M.
receives IHSS,
M.’s mother, who is her IHSS provider, contacted PAI after she had requested more IHSS hours to care for M. (who needs 24-hour monitoring and assessment to ensure she receives enough oxygen). An Administrative Law Judge at a fair hearing found that M. was not entitled to IHSS services to the extent that M.’s EPSDT services duplicated those services and therefore denied the request for more hours. M.’s mother requested a rehearing, and it was granted on the issue of whether or not EPSDT services could be considered alternative resources by the IHSS program.
PAI represented M. and her mother in the rehearing and argued that M.’s EPSDT services should not be considered alternative resources. The rehearing decision, issued at the beginning of April, held that EPSDT services are not alternative resources, and awarded M.’s mother back wages of approximately 43 hours per month, retroactive to M.’s original application to the IHSS program. This amounts to approximately 14 months of back wages and will significantly assist M. and her family. Additionally, M. will continue to receive approximately 132 hours of IHSS per month going forward. A finding that EPSDT cannot be considered an alternative resource to the IHSS program will help many other children in situations similar to M.’s.
Benefits Goals and Objectives: Goal 2, Objective A; Goal 3, Objective A
PAI Staff: Maggie Roberts, Elissa Gershon, Kim Swain, Elizabeth Zirker
Grant/Funding Source: PADD, PAAT
E.W. is a 45 year old woman with a mental disability who became entitled to Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) in January 1990. E.W. worked off and on in 1995 and 1996 and again in 2000 to July 2005. Due to E.W.’s earnings, her SSDI was terminated and SSA charged her with a $44,395 SSDI overpayment. E.W. filed for a waiver of the overpayment.
A PAI advocate assisted E.W. in obtaining Expedited Reinstatement of Benefits (EXR) of her SSDI benefits. After 6 months on EXR, SSA approved E.W.’s eligibility for continued SSDI benefits. However, SSA recouped all of E.W.’s retroactive benefits to offset the SSDI overpayment and began to withhold her monthly SSDI check to recoup the rest of the overpayment. Later, after showing that taking all of E.W.’s SSDI created a hardship, SSA agreed to give her a partial check every month.
SSA denied E.W.’s waiver request. SSA found E.W. was at fault in causing the overpayment and that no hardship existed because she had resources from which to repay the overpayment. The resources in question were a $10,000 savings account and a 4-unit apartment complex owned by E.W. from which she received $4,230 in rent per month. E.W. requested a hearing with the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR).
In preparing for the hearing, the PAI advocate requested E.W.’s SSDI file from SSA, but her file could not be found at the local SSA office or at ODAR. Fortunately, E.W. kept meticulous records and had copies of notices, work activity reports, continuing disability reviews, and correspondence with SSA.
At the hearing, with regard to fault, E.W. provided documentation that proved she reported her earnings and that SSA knew she worked. With regard to hardship, E.W. was able to show that she used the money in her savings account to pay property taxes and for her everyday living expenses when SSA stopped her benefits. Evidence was also introduced to prove that the monthly rent was not enough to cover the mortgage, homeowners association, property management and monthly maintenance fees, leaving her in the red every month. Also submitted was a real estate agent’s declaration and comparables (sales figures of like property in the area) to show that E.W. owed more on the property than what it was currently worth. The property was up for sale and it was expected that she would have to sell it at a loss. As a result of all this evidence and E.W.’s testimony, the Administrative Law Judge waived the overpayment.
Benefits Goals and Objectives: Goal 1, Objective A
PAI Staff: Jerri Ward
Grant/Funding Source: PABSS
See
DISCRIMINATION SECTION, supra.
See MENTAL HEALTH SECTION, supra.
J.M.W. has a diagnosis of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIPD), a neurological disorder characterized by progressive weakness and impaired sensory function in the legs and arms. Until her Medicare kicks in, her healthcare is through her former employer’s self-insured health plan. Because it is a self-insured plan, under ERISA it is not subject to state consumer protection laws governing health plans – even though it is administered by an entity that also sells group and individual health plans.
J.M.W. received intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) infusions, which had the positive effect of making her less dependent on her wheelchair and improved her functioning. When the health plan denied payment and prospective authorization, the treatment was stopped because J.M.W. could not afford the $20,000 a month cost and J.M.W’s level of functioning regressed.
PAI’s research and review of the records indicated that IVIg infusions are a standard, first-line treatment for CIPD but that there had been an earlier diagnosis of lupus (SLE). At PAI’s recommendation, J.M.W. got her treatment team to write a report detailing the basis for the CIPD diagnosis and why the earlier diagnosis of SLE was incorrect - and also to document the positive results from the IVIg infusions. PAI also worked with J.M.W. on her e-mails and phone calls to the Health Plan with the result that the denial was pulled back to be redone as an initial determination that was approved. Among the things J.M.W. requested in the event the request was again denied was a copy of any guidelines used in approving or denying IVIg infusions and the specific grounds for denying the treatment in her case. With IVIg infusion treatment resumed, J.M.W. has been able to regain the ground she lost when treatment was interrupted.
Benefits Goals and Objectives: Goal 2, Objective A
PAI Staff: Marilyn Holle
Grant/Funding Source: PAIR
L.N. is dually eligible for Medi-Cal and Medicare and someone who has lived the last 10-12 years in a nursing facility because of quadriplegia from an accident. He has bounced between nursing facilities and acute hospitals because of the inability of community nursing facilities to maintain his health stability.
L.N. had been hospitalized for about a month and the sending nursing facility refused to take him back. The hospital proposed to send L.N. to a nursing facility over 250 miles away, far from the family that regularly visits him. L.N.’s cousin called PAI for help to prevent him from being transferred to the facility that day and for help in bringing L.N. home instead.
That same afternoon, PAI faxed a letter to L.N. and his cousin at the hospital that explained L.N.’s right to return to any currently open bed or to the next available bed in the sending nursing facility under the federal Nursing Home Reform Act and under State licensing regulations. The letter went on to explain the hospital’s discharge planning obligation as follows: (a) assessment of cousin’s home to identify barriers to be addressed; (b) identifying and arranging for any equipment needed in the home; (c) enlisting the help of a Medicare home health agency to assist in the transition home; (d) ensuring that the Cousin receive the training needed to meet L.N.’s health care needs; and (e) expediting the processing of the IHSS application.
The community hospital delayed discharge a few days to L.N.’s cousin’s home to enable it to do the home assessment, arrange for delivery of the needed equipment including a Hoyer lift, and arrange for transitional home health care and training of the cousin. L.N. is on the Nursing Facility waiver waiting list and his IHSS is being processed – delayed in part by the nursing facility that refused to take him back but continued to bill Medi-Cal as if he were still a resident.
Benefits Goals and Objectives: Goal 3, Objective A
PAI Staff: Marilyn Holle
Grant/Funding Source: PAIR
Z.M. is an eighteen year old non-ambulatory, non-verbal individual with developmental disabilities. He currently lives with his mother, a single parent with health problems, who provides his attendant care.
Z.M.’s mother contacted PAI for advocacy assistance in obtaining an assessment of her son’s need for assistive technology (AT) that would enable her to safely transfer him to and from her vehicle. PAI agreed to attend Z.M.’s Individual Program Plan (IPP) meeting with the Regional Center of Orange County (RCOC).
At the IPP meeting, RCOC denied Z.M.’s request for an AT assessment and eligibility for the Developmentally Disabled Waiver (DD Waiver) that authorizes home and community-based services for people with developmental disabilities who are Regional Center clients. RCOC also refused to place an AT goal for transportation in Z.M.’s IPP. In light of these denials, PAI agreed to represent Z.M. at a hearing.
Before the hearing was set to take place, RCOC reversed its position on DD waiver eligibility and AT assessment. The AT assessment resulted in Z.M. obtaining a Turny seating system in his mother’s vehicle. PAI also obtained interim transportation for Z.M. from RCOC while the Turny system was being installed. Z.M.’s mother reports that she is now able to transport Z.M. safely to vital therapy and medical appointments.
Benefits Goals
and Objectives: Goal 2, Objectives A &
B
Lanterman Goals
and Objectives: Goal 1, Objective A
PAI Staff: Aleyda
Toruno, Michelle Porche
Grant/Funding Source(s):
PAAT
Z.M., referred to above, requires assistance
with all activities of daily living.
Z.M. is eligible for California Children’s Services (C.C.S.) and
Medi-Cal. C.C.S. provides medically
necessary care and case management to children with physically disabling
conditions who meet program eligibility requirements. C.C.S. program provides case management
services for Medi-Cal eligible beneficiaries with C.C.S.-eligible
conditions. As part of their case
management responsibilities, the
Calls and requests were made to C.C.S. to have Z.M. assessed for AT needs such as a hospital bed, a Hoyer lift, and a bath chair. C.C.S. lagged and did not follow up on the assessments. It was only after PAI filed for hearing with the Department of Health Care Services that C.C.S. finally went to Z.M.’s home to assess his technology needs. As a result, C.C.S. provided Z.M. with a hospital bed, bath chair, Hoyer lift, stander, stroller tray, and approved an authorization for him to be evaluated for a back brace.
Benefits Goals and Objectives: Goal 2, Objectives A & B
PAI
Staff: Aleyda Toruno, Michelle Porche
Grant/Funding Source(s): PAAT
PAI was contacted by the parent of E.J., an adult with
physical disabilities and mental retardation whose Medi-Cal and In-Home
Supportive Services (IHSS)[1] were stopped following the loss of her SSI in December
2007. By January 2008, E.J. was back on SSI and her Medi-Cal and IHSS were
reinstated. However, the IHSS program
refused to pay mom for services rendered in December. E.J.’s mother requested a fair hearing and
sought PAI’s assistance.
Prior to the hearing, PAI provided E.J. with information
about her rights and the legal basis on which the County should retroactively
restore her IHSS and Medi-Cal. Namely,
under SB 87, E.J. should not have become ineligible for Medi-Cal (including
IHSS) solely because her SSI had stopped.
SB 87 requires the County to screen Medi-Cal recipients for eligibility
for another Medi-Cal program when they become ineligible for SSI. In December, E.J. worked part-time and would
have qualified for the Medi-Cal 250% Working Disabled program. Based on her countable income, E.J. would
have also qualified for the Aged & Disabled Federal Poverty Level program.
E.J.’s mother provided the County with information about SB 87. As a result, prior to the hearing, the County
agreed to pay the mother for the month in question.
Benefits Goals
& Objectives: Goal 3, Objective A
PAI Staff: Maria Iriarte, Hillary Sklar
Grant/Funding Source(s):
PADD
Zelaya v. California Department of Health
Services, CPF-06-506687.
On
Pre and post-filing negotiations resulted in
the State’s implementation of a plan to reduce the existing backlog, but the
parties could not reach agreement on settlement terms addressing how to avoid
future backlogs. The case moved forward
to hearing in November 2007.
Supplemental briefing was ordered, in part on the issue of the State’s
responsibility to process applications within a certain timeframe (as opposed
to the counties’ obligation). The judge presiding over the writ proceedings
ultimately did not agree with the arguments presented by the plaintiffs
regarding the State’s obligations, and in a decision filed
Benefits Goals & Objectives: Goal 3, Objective A.
PAI Staff: Michelle Uzeta, Suzanna Gee
Co-Counsel:
Mike Keys and Steve
Weiss (BALA); Kim Lewis, Nu Usaha and Bob Newman (WCLP)
Grant/Funding Source(s): PAIR
Mark Chambers et. al. v. City and
Case No.: C06-06346 WHA,
See previous DOL Reports, Issues 47, 48. See also, previous DOL Reports for Davis v. CHHSA, Issues 20, 25, 27, 29, 32, 35, 36, 42, 45, 48.
On
The action
was originally filed
The class, which consists of Medi-Cal recipients who reside at LHH, are on the waitlist for LHH, are within two years post discharge from LHH or are patients at SFGH and are eligible for discharge to LHH, was certified by the Court in July, 2007.
Summary of Settlement
Agreement
The
Settlement provides for expanded community-based living options for seniors and
people with disabilities in
Included in the agreement are:
· Provisions for community-based services for all named class members;
·
Commitment from
· The creation of a Diversion and Community Integration Program, (DCIP) to provide an integrated approach for individuals referred for admission to, and diversion and discharge from, LHH, with the goal of placing those individuals in the most integrated setting that is appropriate to their needs and preferences;
· Provision of/Referral for Case Management and Wrap-Around Services;
· Providing Access to Affordable, Accessible Community Housing, including through development of a LHH Rental Subsidy Program which will subsidize scattered site, accessible, independent housing for approximately 500 class members who are eligible for community-based services;
· Enhancement of Mental Health/Substance Abuse Services;
· Provision for a smaller Laguna Honda Hospital with the goal that the facility is for short-term, rehabilitative treatment;
· Provision of Grievance Procedures for Class Members;
· Provision for Data Collection and Reporting to PAI and co-counsel on a regular basis;
·
Quality Assurance provided by Defendant
· Monitoring of Implementation of the Settlement by PAI.
Discrimination Goals & Objectives: Goal 1, Objective A
Benefits Goals & Objectives: Goal 5, Objective A
PAI Staff: Elissa Gershon, Kim Swain, Elizabeth Zirker
Other Counsel: Disability
Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF), AARP Foundation Litigation, the
In April 2006, PAI
joined a number of legal services organizations in serving as amicus curiae in
a brief to the California Supreme Court case Annette F. v. Sharon S.
(Case No. S138169), a case dealing with a prevailing party’s right to
attorney’s fees under California Civil Code section 1021.5.
California Code of
Civil Procedure section 1021.5 provides that a court may award attorney’s fees
to a prevailing party in a case that has “resulted in the enforcement of an
important right affecting the public interest” if: (a) a significant benefit,
whether pecuniary or nonpecuniary, has been conferred on the general public or
a large class of persons; (b) the necessity and financial burden of private
enforcement … are such as to make the award appropriate; and (c) such fees
should not in the interest of justice be paid out of the recovery, if any.” At issue in Annette F. v. Sharon S. is
the interpretation of subsection (b); whether, in a case that otherwise
satisfies the requirements of Section 1021.5, a purely nonpecuniary interest
can be deemed to outweigh the “financial burden” of the litigation and thus
foreclose an award of attorneys fees.
Among the points
stressed by amici in their brief were:
·
The Court of Appeal
decision penalizes Annette F. (and her counsel), for having too great an
interest in the outcome of her litigation, despite the fact that the interest
was purely nonpecuniary, and notwithstanding her vindication of an important
statutory right.
·
The Court of Appeal
decision is contrary to the California Supreme Court’s prior interpretation of
Section 1021.5 (see e.g., Press v.
Lucky Stores (1983) 34 Cal.3d 311), and contrary to a number of Court of
Appeal decisions that acknowledge the authorization of attorneys’ fees awards
under Section 1021.5 in cases in which nonpecuniary interests are at
stake.
·
The Court of Appeal
decision ignores the fundamental purpose of Section 1021.5, which is to
encourage public interest litigation by providing an incentive to counsel to
take on meritorious actions with the expectation that they will be compensated
if they prevail.
·
The Court of Appeal
decision is arbitrary, inequitable and unworkable. Following the Court of Appeal’s approach, in
cases such as this, an individual’s standing to sue would defeat his or
her ability to sue.
On
Discrimination
Goals and Objectives: Goal 2, Objective A
PAI Staff: Michelle Uzeta
Other
Counsel/Amici: Co-amici include: ACLU, Bay Area Lawyers for Individual
Freedom, Legal Services for Children, The Youth Law Center, and
Grant/Funding
Source:
PAIR
O.T. contacted PAI
after being denied service by bartenders at a large
O.T. was not intoxicated,
and was well above the legal age limit to purchase and consume alcohol. He knew he was being denied service because
of his disability. This fact both
humiliated and angered him. He knew he had the same rights as patrons without
disabilities to enjoy all the services and accommodations of the
nightclub. Not to be discouraged, O.T.
traveled to another part of the nightclub, was eventually served a drink by
another bartender, and made the best of the night.
PAI assisted O.T.
in writing a demand letter to the nightclub owners demanding that they (1)
conduct disability sensitivity training for their staff, and (2) pay him $4,000
in damages for violating his rights under the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civ.
Code section 54.1). The nightclub ignored
the letter.
PAI then assisted
O.T. in filing a complaint against the nightclub in small claims court. Together, PAI and O.T. researched the proper
parties to name as defendants, and who to serve in the case. PAI assisted O.T. in completing all the forms
necessary to move forward with his claim.
PAI also assisted O.T. in asking that he be allowed to present his case
in writing to the court as an accommodation for his speech impairment. Finally, PAI helped O.T. craft his position
statement, outlining the facts of his case and legal claims.
Months passed, and
O.T. finally had his day in court. Although he lost on his discrimination claim
– on the basis that he was eventually able to obtain service in another part of
the nightclub - the presiding judge was outraged at the manner in which O.T.
was treated, and strongly advised the owner of the nightclub to “train his
staff.”
O.T. was pleased
with the outcome of his case. Although
he did not “win” in the traditional sense, he took steps to enforce his rights,
combat discrimination and educate.
Discrimination
Goals & Objectives: Goal 3, Objective
A
PAI Staff: Michelle Uzeta, Sage Reeves
Grant/Funding
Source(s): PADD
Carter et al. v. Allenby et al, San Diego Superior Court No. GIC 879152
See Previous DOL Reports from
Fall 2007 and Spring 2008
Plaintiff Supportive
Parents Information Network (SPIN) has identified four witnesses who are
willing to come forward and provide evidence in this writ of mandate (Writ)
action challenging
In settlement of the
parties’ discovery dispute, plaintiff released the names of the four witnesses
to defendants. Defendants in turn,
dismissed their pending motion to compel the names of all SPIN members who had
consulted with SPIN’s director and attorney.
Defendants will be taking the depositions of these witnesses in June,
2008. The Writ is set to be heard on
Discrimination Goals & Objectives: Goal 3, Objective A
PAI Staff: Ann Menasche
Grant/Funding Source: PAIMI
See, Previous DOL
Report, Fall 2007, ISSUE 49.
In June 2007, PAI
joined a number of disability rights organizations in supporting a Department
of Transportation complaint filed by two Aero Port Services (APS) employees
with the assistance of the Service Employees International Union, Local
1877.
The complaint is
based on the failure of APS to provide its employees with training in the
provision of air travel to individuals with disabilities, including the proper
and safe operation of wheelchairs. Such
training is required under federal law.
The complaint also alleges that APS has failed to provide employees with
equipment enabling the safe transporting of individuals with disabilities.
Although the complaint is still pending, it has already resulted in the
replacement of dozens of broken and shoddy wheelchairs.
Additionally, after
the complaint was filed, Union representatives and disability advocates from
PAI, the City of Los Angeles’ Department on Disability and a local Independent
Living Center met with counsel for the airport to discuss improving training
standards for airport staff. In April of
this year, based on the input received, the Board of Airport Commissioners
passed a policy aimed, in part, at improving training standards for the private
companies that hire service workers at LAX.
Discrimination
Goals & Objectives: Goal 3, Objective A
PAI Staff: Michelle Uzeta
Grant/Funding
Source(s): PAIR
PAI
joined disability rights organizations in supporting a Department of
Transportation (DOT) complaint filed by employees of Prospect
International Airport Services (Prospect)
with the assistance of the Service Employees International Union,
Local 1877. Prospect is a company
contracted to provide passenger services to travelers who use wheelchairs by a
coalition of airlines at the International Terminal (“IT airlines”) of the San
Francisco International Airport (“SFO”).
The complaint is based on Prospect’s failure to provide adequate equipment and training for their employees as required under the Air Carrier Access Act. The lack of adequate training and use of improperly maintained equipment create a high risk of direct harm to both passengers with disabilities and the workers who assist them. The complaint asks the DOT to:
1. Require IT airlines and Prospect to work with the organizations that represent the disability rights community to develop a training curriculum that would meet the needs of that community;
2. Recommend that IT airlines and Prospect, in addition to getting disability sensitivity training, hire its own designated “Disability Liaison,” preferably an individual with a disability who can be an on-staff expert with the proper training and who can provide ongoing training to employees;
3. Require that assistive technology be available upon request for use in safely assisting people without necessarily touching them;
4. Require that IT airlines and Prospect provide all necessary and appropriate trainings as relevant to all its employees, including all who, at any given point, may be asked to provide assistance to individuals with disabilities; and
5. Impose appropriate penalties on IT airlines and Prospect, in accordance with 14 CFR 383.2, for violations of the law.
Although the
complaint is still pending, in response to the advocacy efforts of workers and
disability rights advocates, the Airport Authority at
Discrimination
Goals & Objectives: Goal 3, Objective A
PAI
Staff: Michelle Uzeta
Grant/Funding
Source(s): PAIR
Other Organizations Offering Support:
American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD)
California
Communities Actively Living Independent and Free (CALIF)
Community
Resources for
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF)
See DOL Reports from Fall 2004, Spring 2005, Summer 2005 and Spring 2008.
In 2004, PAI
received a complaint from a resident at an apartment complex in
Following a meeting with the Property Supervisor, PAI wrote a letter explaining that the apartment complex, as a recipient of federal financial assistance, was required to have five percent of the units accessible to people with mobility disabilities and two percent accessible for people with vision and hearing disabilities. At this point, only three of the 92 units were designated as accessible for people with mobility disabilities, while four units were required to be accessible to meet the five percent requirement.
In response to PAI’s letter, the housing provider agreed to make one more unit accessible for people with mobility disabilities and another unit accessible to people with vision and hearing disabilities. In addition, the housing provider agreed to have an architect review all of the accessible units to make sure that they comply with the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS).
Eventually, the
housing provider contacted a disability access specialist. In a report (with pictures) dated
In November of 2006, the housing provider agreed to make the modifications that the disability access specialist recommended in order to make five percent of the units in the apartment complex compliant with UFAS. The housing complex did not contact PAI regarding the modifications.
On
On
Discrimination Goals & Objectives: Goal 2, Objectives A & B
PAI Staff: Fred Nisen
Grant/Funding Source: PAIR
On December 3,
2007, PAI filed a letter seeking the Ninth District Court of Appeal’s
permission to join in the arguments made by amicus curiae Silver State
Fair Housing Council et al. in a brief filed in support of Appellants’ petition
for panel rehearing and for rehearing en banc in Garcia v. Dennis Brockway,
et al. Consolidated Case Nos. 05-35647 and 06-15042; United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The
petition for en banc review was granted, and PAI then joined a number of
disability rights organizations and fair housing advocates in developing an amicus
curiae brief for the hearing en banc.
That brief was filed in January 2008.
At issue in Garcia
is the question of when the statute of limitations begins to run in a
design-and-construction claim under the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The text of the
Act itself is susceptible to at least three reasonable interpretations:
·
The “discriminatory
act” is the affirmative act of not constructing the covered housing in an
accessible manner – whereby the statute of limitations would begin to run once
construction was complete;
·
The denial of
accessible housing to an individual with disabilities is the discriminatory act
– whereby the statute of limitations begins when the person with the disability
actually encounters the discriminatory/inaccessible conditions, irrespective of
when construction was completed; or
·
The ongoing failure to
make the covered housing accessible is a discriminatory act - whereby the
statute of limitations would begin to run when a potential defendant either
ceases to have control over accessibility of the housing or brings the housing
into compliance with the law.
The majority of the
panel adopted the most restrictive of these interpretations (i.e. that the
statute of limitations runs from the date of construction completion).
Rehearing was requested because the majority’s interpretation will weaken
enforcement of the FHA. For a variety of
reasons, most people with disabilities experiencing architectural barriers in
housing built after the accessibility requirements of the FHA became effective
will do so after construction is complete and 2 years have already passed.
In an en banc rehearing
decision, filed
Discrimination
Goals and Objectives: Goal 2, Objective
A
PAI Staff: Michelle Uzeta, Fred Nisen, Stuart Seaborn
Other
Counsel/Amici: Silver State Fair
Housing Council, Inc., Nevada Disability
Advocacy and Law Center, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Inc.,
Disability Rights Advocates, National Disability Rights Network, the Impact
Fund, and Law Professors Robert G. Schwemm, Michael P. Seng, and Michael Evans.
Grant/Funding
Source: PAIR
PAI took the
opportunity to provide comment on the draft Reasonable Accommodation Policy of
the Housing Authority of City of Los Angeles (HACLA). HACLA periodically reviews its policies and
procedures to ensure that participants and residents in its programs and
facilities have equal access to its benefits, services and facilities.
In its comments,
PAI noted HACLA’s policies to be inconsistent with state and federal
authorities. Specifically, HACLA had
misstated its accessibility obligations as they relate to the alteration of
existing facilities and was utilizing incorrect and overly restrictive
standards for processing requests for reasonable accommodations generally.
Discrimination
Goals & Objectives: Goal 2, Objective
B
PAI Staff: Michelle Uzeta
Grant/Funding
Source(s): PAIR
PAI is working with the Affordable Housing Coalition of San Diego County (Coalition) and other groups such as ACORN to plan a forum and conference on the mortgage foreclosure crisis and its impact on affordable housing. The forum/conference is expected to be scheduled for sometime in June 2008.
The foreclosure crisis has had a negative impact not just on homeowners who obtained risky mortgages and now are losing their homes through foreclosure, but also on tenants, including tenants with disabilities. According to the Los Angeles Times, at least 20% of residents of foreclosed properties are tenants, many of whom are being subjected to unscrupulous tactics by lenders eager to get rid of them, forcing such tenants onto the streets. In addition, increasing numbers of foreclosures are turning owners into tenants, placing an upward pressure on rents.
The Coalition has been in the forefront of local organizing efforts on behalf of low-income renters including opposing residential hotel and condominium conversions and fighting for inclusionary housing. The Coalition is hoping to expand the ranks of affordable housing activists to address this crisis while keeping the needs of the most vulnerable residents at the center of their work.
Discrimination Goals & Objectives: Goal 2, Objective B
PAI Staff: Ann Menasche
Grant(s)/Funding Source(s): PAIMI/PAIR
On
Approximately 50 tenants, landlords, advocates, and service providers engaged in a lively discussion with the panelists on issues including emotional support animals and other forms of reasonable accommodations, and discrimination against tenants with psychiatric disabilities and the “direct threat” defense.
Discrimination Goals & Objectives: Goal 5, Objective C
PAI Staff: Pamela Cohen
Grant(s)/Funding Sources: PAIMI
See Previous DOL Report Fall
2007, Issue 49
Last year, PAI was contacted by R.P. who needed to live with his parents in their mobile home located in a seniors-only mobile home park because of his psychiatric disability, because the mobile home park said that he had to move because he was not a senior. At that time, PAI advised R.P. and his parents of his legal right to live with his parents because he needs them for care, support and supervision. PAI wrote a letter to the attorney for the mobile home park setting forth the client’s rights, and assisted the client in obtaining a physician’s letter supporting his need to reside with his parents in their home.
The client was under the impression that the issue had been resolved, until the park’s homeowner’s association and attorney approached him again months later with harassing threats to make him leave the park unless he provided to them an annual confirmation of his disability and a copy of his written psychiatric treatment plan.
PAI wrote additional letters on the client’s behalf, secured another physician’s letter, and represented the client at an informal hearing before the homeowner’s association’s board of directors. The client refused to provide a copy of his treatment plan, and the homeowner’s association has not followed through on its threat. The harassment appears to have stopped.
Discrimination Goals & Objectives: Goal 2, Objective A
PAI Staff: Pamela Cohen
Grant(s)/Funding Sources: PAIMI
PAI was contacted by B.D. seeking advice on modifying her employment schedule from full-time to part-time due to ongoing conditions from her mental health disability after a recent car accident.
PAI advised the client to work with her doctor to draft an accommodation letter discussing the connection between the need to switch from full-time to part-time work and her disability. The client submitted the doctor’s note to her supervisor. Her employer granted a temporary accommodation of part-time employment for a few months.
Discrimination Goals & Objectives: Goal 3, Objective A
PAI Staff: Sean Rashkis
Grant(s)/Funding Source(s): PAIMI
H.S. is a high
school special education teacher with polio-related impairments. Last summer, H.S. was prescribed a wheelchair
by her primary physician; the chair has been recommended for her use at work as
well as home. H.S.’s office at the high
school is in a building that is not wheelchair accessible, so she asked her
Principal to move her to an accessible office in another building on
campus.
Despite completing
all the paperwork necessary to process H.S.’s request, the school did not
provide her the accommodation. As a result, H.S. has not been able to use her
wheelchair at work and for the last 10 months struggles daily navigating the
stairs, causing her to suffer unnecessary physical pain.
PAI wrote a letter
to the Principal of the high school where H.S. is employed, demanding that she
be immediately provided with her accommodation pursuant to both the Americans
with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. Section 12101 et seq.) and State law (Cal.
Gov’t Code §§ 12900 et seq.). Some
negotiation followed, and resulted in H.S. receiving an accessible office and
modified bathroom. H.S. is pleased with
this result, and looking forward to being able to use her wheelchair at
work.
Workgroup: Discrimination, Goal 3, Objective A
PAI Staff: Michelle Uzeta
Grant/Funding
Source(s): PAIR
For the February 5th Presidential Primary, PAI continued its tradition of sponsoring an Election Day toll-free hotline for Californians with disabilities to assure full and equal access to the voting process. PAI used funding from the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) to assist voters with disabilities who had difficulty accessing polling places, casting ballots or had general questions about the voting process. PAI’s hotline is equipped to receive voice, TDD, and Video Relay calls and is also equipped to handle calls from individuals who speak languages other than English.
In addition to assisting voters in this election, PAI uses
the information collected from callers to document discrimination and access
problems at polling places throughout
One issue that PAI is working on as a result of calls to the
hotline is polling places in
Discrimination (Voting Team) Goals & Objectives: Goal 4, Objective B
PAI Staff: Hillary Sklar, Margaret Jakobson, Stuart Seaborn, Fred Nisen, Griselda Delgadillo, Bill Hershon, Kim Swain, Crystal Padilla, Lauren Giardina, Sean Rashkis, Lori Shepard, Pang Moua, Maria Iriarte, Leyla Cantarero, Suzi Bernais, Michelle Uzeta, Mary Rios, Yuen Chiang, Regina Kendricks
Grant/Funding Source(s): PAVA
Discrimination (Voting Team) Goals & Objectives: Goal 4, Objective B
PAI Staff: Hillary Sklar, Margaret Jakobson, Kevin Bayley
Grant/Funding Source(s): PAVA
PAI testified at a joint informational hearing on problems faced by voters during the 2008 Presidential Primary Election. The hearing was called by Assembly member Curren Price, chair of the Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committees; Senator Ron Calderon, chair of the Senate Elections, Reapportionment and Constitutional Amendments Committee; and Senator Jenny Oropeza, chair of the Senate Select Committee on the Integrity of Elections. It was also attended by California Secretary of State Debra Bowen and Senator Mark Ridley-Thomas, a member of the Senate Select Committee on the Integrity of Elections.
PAI staff testified on issues reported to the agency by people with disabilities in voting, including inaccessible polling locations, inoperative voting machines for people with some types of disabilities and the lack of response by county election officials regarding these complaints. PAI staff also passed along some recommendations to the panel as to how voting can be made more accessible.
Discrimination (Voting Team) Goals & Objectives: Goal 4, Objective B
PAI Staff: Kevin Bayley
Grant/Funding Source(s): PAVA
PAI provided a voting training at the April in-service of
the ombudspeople in
Discrimination (Voting Team) Goals & Objectives: Goal 4, Objective B
PAI Staff: Fred Nisen
Grant/Funding Source(s): PAVA
The Secretary of State was
considering undertaking a project using the
services of the state Department of Rehabilitation to do a comprehensive
review of state guidelines on polling place accessibility, including the
survey instrument used to determine accessibility and mitigation needs,
and to provide county officials with training. PAI was asked to review
the scope of work that would be used to contract with the Department of
Rehabilitation for this purpose.
PAI provided
comments about the Secretary of State’s proposal. PAI thought the scope of the project made
sense and made the following suggestions:
· That in addition to a checklist for use when selecting a polling location, there be a checklist for use on Election Day by poll workers which could help poll workers set up the site on Election Day. Such a checklist will allow poll workers to catch things, like unlocking the accessible entrance and putting up proper signage that might be missed without such a checklist.
· That the proposal include developing and making accessibility incident reports available for people with disabilities to complete if there are access problems and reviewing these reports prior to the next training or before using the polling site again. This will help correct problems at the site if it is used again and provide guidance when training poll workers because counties will know what the issues are at a particular site and where further training of poll workers is necessary.
· That the proposal includes a requirement to identify and incorporate, as appropriate, checklists already developed by others, including those developed and already in use by counties.
· That stakeholder input, including stakeholders with an array of disabilities, be obtained when developing training materials and that stakeholders with disabilities be used as trainers in the eleven statewide classes
Discrimination (Voting Team) Goals & Objectives: Goal 4, Objective B
PAI Staff: Margaret Johnson
Grant/Funding Source(s): Trust Fund
As PAI continues its efforts to provide voting rights
information to persons living in institutional settings in
To address these concerns, PAI researched an individual’s
domicile rights – effectively, the location where an individual can register to
vote – under
PAI is in the process of creating a publication to be used in our outreach efforts to residents of institutional living settings to ensure that those individuals not only have access to voting, but that they also have access to voting in the place that they intend to live once they move into the community. The publication will also be available on PAI’s website.
Discrimination Goals & Objectives: Goal 4, Objective B
PAI Staff: Stuart Seaborn
Grant/Funding Source(s): PAVA
As a part of the National Disability Rights Network’s Native
Vote Campaign, PAI has embarked on an outreach and training project targeting
voters with disabilities in Native American Communities in
As a first step, PAI’s Native American Affairs Advocate,
Phyllis Preston, provided a “Train the Trainers” session for PAI staff. The session offered strategies and practical
advice for advocates and attorneys preparing to provide voting rights training
to Native American voters with disabilities throughout the State. It also included historical information about
the role of Native Americans in state and federal governments as well as a
primer on the interplay between tribal law and federal and state laws. The members of PAI’s voting rights team who
participated in the “Train the Trainers” session are now working with Phyllis
to schedule a series of voting rights presentations to a variety of Native
American disability groups throughout
Discrimination Goals & Objectives: Goal 4, Objective B
PAI Staff: Phyllis Preston, Stuart Seaborn, Margaret Jakobson-Johnson, Fred Nisen, Garnet Magnus
Other Counsel: NDRN
Grant/Funding Source(s): PAVA
On
That the Auto Mark system is reasonably easy to use and that various accessibility features can be useful to people with some types of disabilities.
Accessibility advantages of the Auto Mark included:
§
The “hybrid” nature of this system that provides the touch screen
interface of a
§
The touch screen interface that can be used separately or in
conjunction with the audio interface, which itself can be speed and
playback-controlled by the voter.
§
A choice between several different methods to
operate the system and make ballot choices including foot pedal control,
Braille keypad, and puff and sip.
§
The ability to change the font size and contrast on the touch screen
display as well as the angle of the screen.
Areas
of concern regarding accessibility of the Auto Mark System included making it
more accessible to persons with physical/mobility and dexterity/grip
strength/touch disabilities. For
example, manipulating and inserting the ballot into the voting system (as well
as into the separate tabulation system) can be difficult for persons with
manual dexterity and/or grip strength disabilities. In addition, the touch “force” required to
use the touch screen interface is excessive and can be a problem for persons
with manual dexterity and/or grip strength disabilities. Lastly, the touch pad
is attached to the voting system and cannot be moved into a person’s lap if
they have reach or dexterity disabilities.
Privacy was also identified as an area of concern with the Auto Mark system such as when a person is sitting in front of the system and anyone passing behind the person has full view of the screen, or when a person needs to vote curbside.
Opportunities such as this, to provide input to the quality of accessibility of various accessible voting systems, serve as an important safe guard to the ability of Californians with disabilities to exercise their rights to an inclusive, independent and private voting experience.
Discrimination Goals & Objectives: Goal 4, Objective B
DDPSA Goals & Objectives: Goal 2, Objective 1
PAI Staff: Margaret Jakobson-Johnson and Marinda Reed
Grant/Funding Source(s): Trust Fund/ Equal Access/ PAVA
Submitters: Margaret Jakobson-Johnson and Marinda Reed
PAI staff, in collaboration with the Independent Living
Centers of
Discrimination (Voting Team) Goals & Objectives: Goal 5, Objective B
PAI Staff: Hillary Sklar
Grant/Funding Source(s): PAVA
A.W. v.
A.W. is a 15 year
old who attended High School and received special education services as a
student with Specific Learning Disabilities.
On
Under IDEA, a
student should not be recommended for expulsion when the behavior for which
expulsion is being recommended is a manifestation of his or her
disability. In this case, the District
had previously implemented a behavior support plan to address a behavior of
fighting that impeded her learning.
However, this plan was no longer in place as of her most recent
IEP. A.W. wanted to avoid expulsion and
either continue receiving home teaching (which she was receiving as an interim
placement) or attend another high school within the district.
On
A.W. chose to
continue home teaching for the rest of the semester with the option of
attending another High School in the fall or possibly returning to High School.
Education Goals
& Objectives: Goal 2, Objective A
PAI Staff: Connie
Huang, Keith Sakimura
Grant/Funding Source(s): Equal Access
J.W. is a 13-year-old student with severe
behavioral issues who received Special Education Services under the eligibility
category of Emotional Disturbance (ED).
He has a long and documented history of poor social skills and other
social, emotional and behavioral issues.
Despite this history, the
The District violated both federal and state laws, in particular IDEA and the California Education Code. It failed to provide J.W. with a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), by failing to meet its Child Find responsibility (under IDEA) to seek out children in need of special education services and assess them for eligibility. It placed J.W. in an Interim Alternative Educational Placement for behavior that did not meet any of the 3 criteria necessary to justify this type of placement, and failed to develop a Behavior Intervention Plan. It also excluded J.W. from school without written notice in violation of the California Education Code.
J.W. sought placement at a public school with appropriate behavioral services, a Functional Analysis Assessment (FAA) and Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP), a comprehensive psychological assessment, and counseling.
On
On March 18, 2008, the District and J.W. (through PAI) agreed to a final settlement whereby an Independent Assessor would develop a BIP, a speech and language assessment would be conducted, J.W. would receive 60 hours of individual/family counseling with Independent Assessor, and the due process case would be dismissed. The District also agreed to pay attorneys’ fees.
J.W. currently attends
Education Goals & Objectives: Goal 1, Objective A
PAI
Staff: Connie Huang,
Grant/Funding Source: EA (CYAI)
A.M.
v.
A.M.’s parent contacted PAI because A.M., who was eligible for special education under the category of Specific Learning Disability (SLD)[3], was being expelled for his participation in a fight. Notably, the fight occurred after school at an apartment complex off campus, and A.M.’s only involvement in the fight was as an observer, although he was alleged to have struck one of the participants after the fight was over. This was A.M.’s third fight during the 2007/2008 school year.
A.M. has an SLD in math, but had no academic goals. Although his IEP noted that his SLD originated from a visual processing disorder, he had never been referred for a visual processing assessment or an Occupational Therapy assessment, and did not have any goals or services to address the disorder. In addition, A.M. had engaged in fighting before but he was never referred for an FAA or BIP. A.M. did have a behavior support plan that put all of the responsibility on him to seek out assistance if he felt that he was going to have a fight. IEP team members had noted that he did not have the social skills to avoid a fight. Despite this, A.M. was not offered any behavioral, social, emotional, or counseling goals and services.
PAI filed a complaint for a due process[4] hearing on April 17, 2008 alleging:
1. Failure to appropriately assess the student’s behavior functioning and visual processing ability in both the 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 school years.
2. Failure to provide appropriate related services by failing to offer behavior supports and services and vision therapy in both the 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 school years.
3. Failure to provide appropriate goals and objectives during the 2007/2008 school year.
4. Failure to provide any behavior supports during the 2007/2008 school year.
5. That the pending expulsion was illegal because it violated the California Education Code since it occurred after school and off campus, that the school failed to implement the behavior support plan because the BSP specifically stated that A.M. was to seek out school personnel if he felt that he would be involved in a fight, and since this fight occurred off campus, there was no school personnel for him to seek.
On
Education Goals & Objectives: Goal 2, Objective A
PAI Staff: Lauren Giardina
Grant/Funding
Source: Equal Access,
Capitol People
First et al. v. Department of Developmental Services et al. v. CASH/PCR
Case No.
2002-038715, Alameda County Superior Court, Judge Robert B. Freedman, filed
January 2002)
See previous DOL report, Winter 2008. Also see DOL Report, Spring 2002 for a
summary of the case.
Capitol People
First was filed as a class action seeking
community living arrangements for more than 7,000 Californians with
developmental disabilities who are residents of the developmental centers or
other large congregate facilities and people at risk of placement in such
facilities.
In January 2008,
the California Supreme Court denied the state defendants’ and interveners’
petitions for review of a Court of Appeal decision that was favorable to
plaintiffs. This Supreme Court decision
is a victory for plaintiffs; it means that the Supreme Court was not convinced
that it needed to hear an appeal of the Court of Appeal’s decision.
In September 2007,
in a resounding victory for plaintiffs, the California Court of Appeal for the
First Appellate District had ordered the trial court to grant class
certification. The case will now proceed
as a class action on behalf of thousands of individuals who receive services
from regional centers and are either living in state or private institutions,
or are at risk of institutionalization.
The ruling means that even people with significant disabilities have
meaningful access to the courts to vindicate their rights to live as a part of,
rather than apart from, the community.
Discovery in the
case, which has been stayed while the class certification appeal was pending,
will now proceed. If the parties do not
reach a settlement, the case is expected to go to trial in approximately March
2009.
Background on the
case, including legal documents and press coverage 2002-2006, can be read at
www.pai-ca.org/advocacy/cpfvdds/index.htm
Lanterman Goals
& Objectives: Goal 1, Objective 1
Counsel for
PAI:
Barbara Dickey, Sujatha Jagadeesh Branch, Ellen Goldblatt, Maggie
Roberts, Dara Schur, Kim Swain, Elissa Gershon, Jonathan Elson
Outside
Co-counsel: Chris O’Connor, Bingham McCutchen; Michael
Tracy, David Dell, DLA Piper
Grant/Funding
Source(s): PADD, PATT, Equal Access
G. is a
13-year-old Regional Center (RC) client who, due to her disability, had nightly
sleep disruption and other behavioral challenges that resulted in her family
suffering sleep deprivation and being unable to function appropriately for work
and support their other daughter. As a
result, G. moved to a crisis facility in
In the fall of
2007 it was determined that it was time to plan for G’s return to
Although all
agreed that G. was ready to return to
Lanterman Goals
& Objectives: Goal 2, Objective A
PAI Staff: Ellen Goldblatt
Grant/Funding
Source: EA
The
PAI and OCRA met
with the students, their families, and teacher/community advocates on several
occasions. The Executive Director of the local site-based day program joined
the meetings as they are interested in expanding to provide the type of
supports the students’ desire. A plan was developed where the advocacy would
proceed on two fronts: a group letter would be sent to the NBRC administration
requesting development of a new program in
Lanterman Goals
& Objectives: Goal 1, Objective A
PAI Staff: Ellen Goldblatt, Yuhlalia Hernandez, OCRA
Grant/Funding
Source: EA
PAI worked with the author and the sponsor of
To ensure that SB 1317 promotes employment opportunities for
individuals with disabilities, including developmental disabilities, PAI
specifically provided amendments and recommendations and testified at the Senate
Health and Human Services Committee. PAI advocated for at least minimum wage
for individuals in a career opportunity program. PAI also pushed to ensure that at least the
majority of people with disabilities who work in a career opportunity program
would receive full time status and thus, can access benefits from their
employer. Due to PAI’s advocacy, the
author and the sponsor of SB 1317 agreed to adopt these amendments and
recommendations. PAI will continue to
work with the author and the sponsor to ensure that a career opportunity
program is as integrated as possible and to improve employment opportunities
for individuals with disabilities.
Lanterman Goals and Objectives: Goal 1, Objective B
PAI Staff: Ellen Goldblatt/Tho Vinh Banh
Grant/Funding Source(s): PADD
(See Benefits
section)
PAI made a
presentation to consumers, families, and professionals at the annual CAL-TASH
Conference in February, 2008. The
presentation gave an update on the developments in the last year on lawsuits,
policy matters and statistics related to community living for persons with
developmental disabilities in
Lanterman Goals &
Objectives: Goals 4, Objectives A & B
PAI Staff: Ellen Goldblatt
Grant/Funding
Source(s): EA
Using PAI’s
videoconferencing technology, PAI was able to reach Japanese-speaking families
who gathered in PAI’s
Lanterman Goals
& Objectives: Goal 4, Objective B
PAI Staff: Ellen Goldblatt, Anna Levine
Grant/Funding
Source:
EA/PADD
On
Lanterman Goals
& Objectives: Goal 4, Objective
B
PAI Staff: Ellen Goldblatt, Marsha Siegel, and Celeste Palmer
Grant/Funding
Source: EA/OCRA
PAI works on an
ongoing basis with the Governmental Affairs coordinators of the CSLN to promote
the equitable accessibility of supported living across
Lanterman Goals
& Objectives: Goal 2, Objective B
PAI Staff: Ellen Goldblatt
Grant/Funding
Source:
EA
Outreach and
training was provided to Solano FEAT, a support group for parents of children
with autism and autism spectrum disorders.
The training focused on the IEP process, a general Lanterman Act
overview, accessing services, the IPP process, and the disputes/fair hearing
process. Parents had many questions
about specific issues with
Lanterman Goals
& Objectives: Goal 4, Objective B
PAI Staff: Jonathan Elson, Leilani Pfeifer, Daniel Meadows, Terry
Lindsay
Grant/Funding
Source: PADD
W.S., a patient at one of the
State Hospitals, had a medical device taken from him when he entered the
hospital. W.S. reported that by not
having the medical device, his physical ailments worsened.
PAI sent an opinion letter to the
Medical Director of the
Mental Health Goals and Objectives: Goal 1, Objective A
PAI Staff: Sean Rashkis
Grant/Funding Source: PAIMI
L.C., a person with a psychiatric
disability, has been living in the community but not receiving a set of
supports and services to enable her to live as independently as possible. She came to PAI for help securing supports
and services.
PAI called a treatment team
meeting with L.C. and her county mental health service provider, which led to
the development of a written service plan based on L.C.’s individualized goals
and objectives. PAI then negotiated and
advocated with both the mental health service provider and county representatives
to implement L.C.’s service plan.
In addition to the services L.C.
was already receiving, she will now also benefit from case management services,
additional housing options and referrals, and a regular exercise program funded
by the county. PAI will continue to be
involved in L.C.’s case with the goal of helping her to obtain one-to-one
rehabilitation services under the Medi-Cal “Rehab” Option, and peer support
services under the Mental Health Services Act.
Mental Health Goals and Objectives: Goal 3, Objective A
Benefits Goals and Objectives: Goal 3, Objective A
PAI Staff: Matt Fishler
Grant/Funding Source(s): PAIMI
On
The complaint involves two
month-long denials of rights to all visitation from family and friends. The complaint asserts that the denial of
rights was fundamentally punitive in nature and continued to be withheld as a
privilege to be earned, in violation of Title 9 regulations and provisions of
state law. The complaint further asserts
that even assuming that there was good cause or the temporary restriction of
some visitation, the denial of rights was far more restrictive and continued
far longer than necessary. Lastly, the
complaint asserts that F.D. was denied good quality culturally competent care
(F.D. is a member of an ethnic minority), and was deprived of his greatest
strength and source of support, his close knit family. The denial of visits from his family has
worsened F.D.’s depressive condition and caused him to self-isolate.
Mental Health Goals & Objectives: Goal 1, Objective A
PAI Staff: Ann
Menasche
Grant/Funding Source:
PAIMI
A number of patients at one of the
State Hospitals contacted PAI regarding plans for the hospital to go
smoke-free. All staff and patients would
not be allowed to smoke anywhere on the hospital grounds (both indoors and
outdoors). The concerned patients wanted
to retain a choice in smoking and believed a smoke-free policy would raise
stress and aggression among patients.
Realizing that this issue would impact a large number of patients at the
PAI sent an opinion letter to the
Executive Director of the
Mental Health Goals & Objectives: Goal 1, Objective A
PAI Staff: Sean Rashkis
Grant/Funding Source: PAIMI
D.R. is deaf and has a mental
health disability. He has been incarcerated in the mental health treatment unit
of a Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) Correctional facility for the past
eight months.
D.R. contacted PAI shortly after
being placed in the DJJ facility. D.R complained that although he received
excellent sign interpreter services during the day for his school program, he
did not receive adequate interpretation services during his mental health
treatment sessions and other group treatment sessions which were held in the
evening. Further, he was not given an emergency communication device to alert
him when there was an emergency, nor did he have a vest to alert armed wardens
that he was deaf. Lastly, he did not have equal access to telephone calls
because he had only limited access to the TTY system.
PAI wrote the facility’s
superintendent, as well as the
In early April, PAI and D.R.’s
public defender traveled to the DJJ facility to determine whether the problems
complained of were resolved and to see whether DJJ was providing D.R. with
reasonable accommodations. The visit
revealed that many of the problems remained unresolved. A meeting was held and DJJ agreed to resolve
all the accommodation issues. PAI will
follow up again to make sure that DJJ has complied with the agreement.
Discrimination Goals & Objectives: Goal 3, Objective A
Mental Health Goals & Objectives: Goal 1, Objective A
PAI Staff: Maggie Roberts
Grant/Funding Source: PAIMI
PAI staff gave a presentation to
114 social workers at
Mental Health Goals & Objectives: Goal 4, Objective B
PAI Staff: Garnet Magnus,
Kevin Bayley
Grant/Funding Source(s): PSAU, EA
J.P. is a person with psychiatric
and physical disabilities who resides at
Mental Health Goals & Objectives: Goal 1, Objective A
PAI Staff: Matt Fishler, Kevin Bayley
Grant/Funding Source(s): PAIMI, EA-RIF
“A&D
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 provides referrals to County Mental Health Services for children with special education needs beyond what schools can offer. These services are considered special education services.
“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.
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR)
Methods of resolving disputes without official court proceedings. These methods include MEDIATION and ARBITRATION.
AMICUS CURIAE
PAI 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 PAI 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 PAI appears as an amicus curiae, PAI 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. (Compare with MEDIATION.
BEHAVIOR INTERVENTION PLAN
Plan 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,
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 (
· 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.
“
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
CALWORKs
CalWORKS is
“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.
COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES (CASA)
These 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
The California Youth Authority (CYA), a
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 (
“DFEH” or DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT
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
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 (
“DOE” or DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
“DSS” or CA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
The California Department of
Social 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
PAI receives grants from the
state Equal Access to Justice Program to serve indigent people with
disabilities on specified projects.
ELLIS ACT
The
EN
Court
“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,
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.
FAIR MARKET RENT (FMR)
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
“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
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
“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
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, subacute 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 intervenor.
“IOLTA” or
“IPP” or INDIVIDUAL PROGRAM
“IRWE” or IMPAIRMENT RELATED
This term is used under The Social Security Disability Insurance
(SSDI)
JUDGMENT (JUDGEMENT)
The judge's final decision in a case.
LANTERMAN ACT
The
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
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 is
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
“ODD” or OP POSITIONAL 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, PAI 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,
PAI 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,
PAI became the agency in
“PAIMI” or PROTECTION & ADVOCACY FOR
INDIVIDUALS WITH MENTAL ILLNESS The
Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act of 1986 (PAIMI)
extended PAI’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 PAI’s mandate to
people with physical, learning and sensory disabilities.
“PASRR” or PREADMISSIONS SCREENING
“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. PAI 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 (
PRO
BONO
Legal work done for free. From the Latin meaning "for the public good." Private firms often work with PAI “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 RCs in
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
The Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA) is an
administrative unit under
“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
This
is a monthly amount that is specified by Social Security for individuals who
are employed or self-employed.
“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 (
“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 who use special equipment to make a word-for-word record of the proceeding.
“TWP” or TRIAL
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
UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
This law provides protection from discrimination by all business
establishments in
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
PAI Monitors Abuse against
People with Disabilities in Skilled Nursing Facilities 1
BENEFITS...................................................................................................... 3
PAI Receives Favorable
Rehearing Result for Client in IHSS-EPSDT Case....... 3
SSDI Beneficiary Receives
Expedited Reinstatement of Benefits and a Favorable Decision on a Waiver of an
Overpayment.............................................................................. 3
Settlement Reached in Laguna
Honda Class Action.......................................... 3
PAI Advocacy Helps Client to
Secure Community Based Mental Health and Supportive Services...................................................................................................................... 3
PAI Provides Technical
Assistance to get Health Plan to Cover Needed Infusions. 3
L.N. is Discharged From
Hospital to His Cousin’s Home Rather Than to a Nursing Facility Over 250 Miles
Away.............................................................................................. 3
Regional Center Purchases Turny
Seating System and Assesses for Waiver Services 3
Z.M. Obtains Assessment for
Assistive Technology Needs Through California Children’s Services......................................................................................................... 3
PAI Advises Parent of County’s
Obligation to Follow Senate Bill (SB) 87 Procedures 3
PAI, WCLP and BALA Take Legal
Action to Enjoin Delayed Determinations on Disability-Based Medi-Cal
Applications.................................................................................... 3
DISCRIMINATION........................................................................................ 3
Settlement Reached in Laguna
Honda Class Action.......................................... 3
California Supreme Court
Decides Case Interpreting a Prevailing Party’s Right to Attorney’s Fees Under
CCP 1021.5......................................................................................... 3
PAI Assists Client Denied
Service in a Local Dance Club Assert his Rights in Court. 3
Four Witnesses Come Forward in
a Case Challenging San Diego County’s Discriminatory Childcare Policy............................................................................................. 3
PAI’s Work with Disability
Advocates and SEIU Local 1877 Results in Improvements for Air Travelers with
Disabilities................................................................................ 3
PAI Joins Other Disability
Rights Advocates in Calling Upon the Department of Transportation to Enforce
Requirements Regulating Provision of Air Travel to People with Disabilities 3
PAI Reaches Agreement With a
Housing Provider to Modify Units to be Accessible to People With Mobility
Disabilities................................................................................ 3
PAI Serves as Amicus in
Landmark Case Interpreting the Statute of Limitations for Fair Housing Act
Claims Regarding New Construction......................................................... 3
PAI Offers Comment to the
Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles’ Draft Reasonable Accommodation
Policy................................................................................... 3
PAI Participates in Planning
for Conference to Address Foreclosure Crisis....... 3
PAI Participates on Fair Housing
Panel............................................................ 3
PAI Assisted in Protecting the
Right of an Individual With a Psychiatric Disability to Live With His Parents
in Their Seniors-Only Mobile Home Park....................................... 3
PAI Provides Advice on
Requesting a Reasonable Accommodation to Employment Schedule 3
PAI Assists Educator in
Obtaining Employment Accommodations................... 3
PAI Sponsored a Voting Hotline
for February Presidential Primary Election...... 3
PAI Collaborates with Election
Protection and Provides Disability Rights Technical Assistance For Their
Statewide Election Hotline................................................................ 3
PAI Testifies At Joint
Legislative Hearing......................................................... 3
PAI Provides Voting Training to
Ombudspeople in Alameda County................ 3
PAI Provides Comments on
Secretary of State Polling Place Accessibility Proposal for Department of
Rehabilitation........................................................................... 3
PAI Creates Publication to Help
Ensure Voters Living in Institutions Can Vote in the Jurisdiction of Their
Domicile............................................................................................ 3
PAI Reaches Out to Native
American Voters with Disabilities........................... 3
LPIU and DDPSAU Provide Input
on Accessibility of the Auto Mark Voting System 3
PAI Hosts Voter Empowerment
Workshop at the Respectability Conference.... 3
EDUCATION.................................................................................................. 3
Client Avoids Expulsion from
Azusa Unified School District............................ 3
J.W. Receives Necessary
Behavioral Services from. LAUSD............................ 3
San Diego Area School District
Retracts Expulsion Against Student due to Inappropriate Behavior Supports.......................................................................................... 3
LANTERMAN................................................................................................. 3
Trial Scheduled; Case Continues
to be Litigated............................................... 3
PAI Assists 13 year Old Girl to
Return Home from Crisis Facility..................... 3
Transition Aged Youth in
Benicia Want Integrated Employment and Community Participation Opportunities on
Leaving School..................................................................... 3
PAI Advocates to Improve
Employment Opportunities for Individuals with Disabilities. 3
Regional Center Purchases Turny
Seating System and Assesses for Waiver Services 3
PAI Provides Legal and Factual
Update on Community Living In California at the CAL-TASH Conference..................................................................................................... 3
Outreach and Training to
Japanese Speaking Families in Northern and Southern California 3
Outreach and Training to
Families of Children with Special Needs.................... 3
California Supported Living
Network (CSLN) – Joint Efforts to
Promote Supported Living 3
Outreach and Training to
Families for Early Autism Treatment (FEAT), Solano County Chapter...................................................................................................................... 3
MENTAL
HEALTH........................................................................................ 3
Client Receives Medical Device
after PAI Sends Opinion Letter to State Hospital. 3
PAI Advocacy Helps Client to
Secure Community Based Mental Health and Supportive Services...................................................................................................................... 3
PAI Files Licensing Complaint Against
Alpine Special Treatment Center on Behalf of Mental Health Client................................................................................................... 3
PAI Sends Opinion Letter to State Hospital
Regarding Patients’ Right to Smoke in a Designated Area............................................................................................................... 3
PAI Successfully Advocates for
Adequate Sign Language Interpretation and Other Accommodations for Deaf Inmate
in Mental Health Treatment Unit of California Correctional Facility........................................................................................................... 3
PAI Conducts Training to Patton
State Hospital Social Workers....................... 3
PAI Advocacy Helps Client at
State Hospital to Secure Medical Care............... 3
GLOSSARY
OF SELECTED TERMS.......................................................... 3
[1] E.J.’s mother is her IHSS provider.
[2] The resident had other issues as well, which were resolved.
[3] In addition to an SLD diagnosis, A.M. was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.
[4] The legal issues arose under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (“IDEA”) and the California Education Code.