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.