Ricci v. Callahan

646 F. Supp. 378, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19249
CourtDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts
DecidedOctober 9, 1986
DocketCiv. A. 72-0469-T (Belchertown); 74-2768-T (Fernald); 75-3910-T (Monson); 75-5023-T (Wrentham); 75-5210-T (Dever)
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 646 F. Supp. 378 (Ricci v. Callahan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ricci v. Callahan, 646 F. Supp. 378, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19249 (D. Mass. 1986).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

TAURO, District Judge.

A class action was filed in 1972, on behalf of the mentally retarded residents of Belchertown State School, asserting that conditions there were so inadequate that they violated the residents’ constitutional and statutory rights. During the next three years, similar actions were filed on behalf of residents of Fernald, Monson, Wrentham and Dever State Schools. Named as defendants were several Massachusetts officials with direct and indirect responsibility for these institutions.

I inspected these institutions and learned first hand that conditions at each of them were deplorable and intolerable. That impression was conveyed to the defendants who, thereafter, agreed to work with plaintiffs and the court in an effort to fashion a series of consent decrees that would remedy the unacceptable conditions under which our mentally retarded citizens were existing. Those decrees were finalized and issued by this court in 1977. Much has been accomplished since then. 1

Thanks to the enlightened leadership of Governor Dukakis — the determined and even-handed oversight of Attorney General Bellotti — the concerted efforts of state and federal officials — the tireless devotion of the parents, friends and legal counsel of the retarded — the invaluable cooperation of the Children’s Hospital Medical Center— the support and responsiveness of our state legislature — the diligence and patience of our three Court Monitors, Steven Horowitz, Anne Berry and Tom Wachtell — and the truly noble dedication of the professional staffs who provide daily care at these schools — it is now clear that we have significantly improved the quality of life for the retarded.

The filth, squalor and unsafe conditions that once characterized these institutions no longer exist. Instead, major capital projects at each of them have been completed or are in progress. Staffing levels have been dramatically increased, thereby providing truly professional supervision, as well as habilitative opportunities. In addi *380 tion, a responsive program of community-placement has been undertaken.

Of course, these schools are still far from perfect. More work remains to be done. But, given the demonstrated good faith of all concerned, I am confident that I no longer need to actively oversee compliance with these decrees. I have, therefore, fashioned the attached order that will serve as the agenda for their full implementation, under the supervision of an Office of Quality Assurance, to be established within the Governor’s office by his Executive Order.

I take this step of disengagement with confidence that our retarded citizens will never again live under the conditions of a decade ago.

* 3}c :jc # $ 9k

The essential concepts covered by the accompanying order are summarized below.

1. ONGOING SERVICE PROVISION.

The defendants are ordered to continue to provide services and housing to all class members 2 , and to maintain facilities and equipment, in accordance with the provisions of Title XIX of the Social Security Act and the consent decrees. Notwithstanding the stylistic differences of the various decrees, the overriding substantive principles guiding the court’s supervision of each institution have been the same — the standards of care articulated in Title XIX and in the Capital Community Plan. The defendants are required to continue their adherence to those standards.

2. OFFICE OF QUALITY ASSURANCE.

At a hearing on March 3, 1986, I informed the parties that, as a condition of my disengagement from these cases, an independent quality assurance oversight process would have to be established. To this end, the court directs that there be established the Office of Quality Assurance (Office). The Office shall be maintained by the Commonwealth for a three year period, to commence on the date of this court’s disengagement. The role of the Office is to monitor the quality of care provided to class members, so as to ensure continued compliance with the various orders of this court.

The Office is to be established by the transfer of the current Court Monitor's Office to the supervision of the Governor. The Director of the Office shall be Tom Wachtell, the present Court Monitor. The Office shall be funded in accordance with the budget contained in Appendix A of the accompanying order. An Advisory Panel to the Office shall be established, as specified in Appendix A.

3. PERSONNEL.

Required staffing levels and patterns at the various institutions have been established by the Personnel Decree. The court recognizes that these staffing levels and patterns must be sufficiently flexible to meet changing needs. To that end, and in order to ensure proper care for all class members, a process must exist for determining the adequacy of staffing patterns, both at the institutions and in community settings. The defendants have developed such a process, with the valuable guidance of the Department of Health and Human Services. That process was substantially accepted and made an order of the court on August 18, 1986.

4. PROJECTS SUBJECT TO COMPLETION.

Notwithstanding the substantial progress that has been made, there are a *381 ¡number of matters that must be resolved in order to ensure that full compliance is achieved and maintained. These items are delineated in Appendix B of the accompanying order. In addition, it is essential that there exist sufficient safeguards and mechanisms to ensure that class members continue to receive the services to which they are entitled. The defendants have committed themselves to establishing and maintaining such safeguards and mechanisms, and these too are identified in Appendix B. It shall be the Director’s responsibility to monitor the defendants’ progress, so as to ensure full compliance without unnecessary delay.

ORDER

For the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum, it is hereby ordered as follows:

1. The defendants shall continue to provide services to all class members, as that term is defined in note 2 of the accompanying memorandum, and to maintain facilities and equipment, in accordance with the standards and requirements of Title XIX of the Social Security Act and the consent decrees. All service provision requirements of the decrees remain in force, as do those provisions requiring Individual Service Plans and the utilization of evaluation and monitoring mechanisms.

2. An Office of Quality Assurance shall be established by an Executive Order of the Governor, in terms consistent with the provisions of Appendix A, attached hereto.

3. The defendants shall maintain personnel levels at the various institutions in accordance with the Personnel Decree and this court’s modification order of April 21, 1982. In the event that changes in personnel levels are required, either as a result of community placement or increased resident need, such changes shall be determined and carried óut in accordance with this court's memoranda and orders of February 28, 1986, and August 18, 1986.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ricci v. Okin
770 F. Supp. 2d 438 (D. Massachusetts, 2011)
Newell v. Department of Mental Retardation
446 Mass. 286 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
646 F. Supp. 378, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ricci-v-callahan-mad-1986.