From: <kleinman (Kathleen Kleinmann)>
Sender: <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Institutional Care not a Right
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 11:52:02 -0400
Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300

From: "Shane, Ilene" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: PA COURT REJECTS ARGUMENT THAT OLMSTEAD CONFERS A RIGHT TO REMAIN
         IN AN INSTITUTION
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 11:33:45 -0400

PA COURT REJECTS ARGUMENT THAT OLMSTEAD CONFERS A RIGHT TO REMAIN IN AN
INSTITUTION

In a case in which DLP represents the plaintiff class, a federal district
court in Pennsylvania recently rejected the argument that the Supreme
Court's decision in Olmstead v. L.C. confers on individuals a right to
remain in an institution.

In Richard C. v. Houstoun, Civil Action No. 89-2038, slip op. (W.D. Pa.
Sept. 29, 1999), individuals sought to intervene to challenge a settlement
agreement under which Pennsylvania agreed to place residents of a state
mental retardation facility into appropriate, community programs.  The
proposed intervenors, relying on dicta in Olmstead, argued that the
facility's residents have a right to remain in the facility if they oppose
community placement.

The district court in Richard C. noted that the Supreme Court concluded
that states are required to provide community-based services if:  (1) such
placement is appropriate; (2) the person does not oppose such placement;
and (3) the state can reasonably accommodate the person in the community
in light of its resources and the needs of others.  In rejecting the
proposed intervenors' argument, the district court explained:

In stating its conclusion, the Supreme Court clearly stated that
it was considering the circumstances under which the ADA requires the
placement of institutionalized disabled persons into community-based
treatment programs.  Contrary to the assertion of the [proposed
intervenors], it does not logically follow that institutionalization is
required if any one of the three Olmstead criteria [including consent to
community placement] is not met.

This decision confirms that nothing in Olmstead precludes a state from
closing or downsizing institutions or placing individual residents into
the community and that the ADA does not confer on individuals the right to
veto such actions.


NATIONAL ADAPT MAILING LIST - Adapt MiCASA List of Adapt Organizers.