The York Legal Group represented the State of Arkansas and the Conway Human Development Center in a recent case brought by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) involving claims under CRIPA, the ADA, and the IDEA.  After a thirty (30) day trial and extensive post-trial briefing schedule, this matter was decided by District Judge Leon Holmes.  Judge Holmes ruled, in June of 2011, in the favor of the State and against the DOJ with regard to all of the claims.  No appeal was taken by the DOJ.

            The Complaint which was filed by the DOJ contained three claims against the State of Arkansas, the Director of the Arkansas Department of Human Services, the Director of Arkansas Division of Developmental Disabilities Services, and the Superintendent of the Conway Human Development Center (in their official capacities).  In their first claim for relief, the

DOJ alleged that the patterns and practices at the Conway Human Development Center violated the constitutional rights of its residents by failing to provide reasonably safe conditions; by failing to provide a level of rehabilitation and training to protect residents’ liberty interests and to ensure their rights and freedom; and by substantially departing from generally accepted standards of care in the medical, psychological and other professional services provided by the Center.  For its second claim for relief, the DOJ alleged that the Conway Human Development Center violated the integration mandate of the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Its third claim was that the Conway Human Development Center was in violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and that the Defendants were failing to provide children at the Center with a Free and Appropriate Public Education as is required by the Act. 

            In its decision, the Court heavily relied upon standards set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 102 S. Ct. 2452, 73 L. Ed.2d 28 (1982), and decided that the Defendants had not violated the mandates of the Fourteenth Amendment. In its decision, the Court also relied on the testimony of the defense experts, and found them to be more credible than the experts offered by the DOJ.  In addressing the claims in connection with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the integration mandate, the Court relied on the United States Supreme Court decision in Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581, 587, 119 S.Ct. 2176, 2181, 144 L. Ed. 2d 540 (1999), which specifically states:

A state generally may rely on the reasonable assessments of its own professionals in determining whether an individual meets the essential eligibility requirements for rehabilitation in a community based program.  There is no requirement that a community based treatment be imposed on persons who do not desire it.

Id., at 602.  After referencing the credible testimony of the defense witnesses, the Court ultimately ruled that the DOJ had failed to prove that the Defendants were in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.  The Court also found that the DOJ failed to prove that Conway Human Development Center is not the most integrated setting appropriate for the needs of any specific resident.  Finally, in relying upon 20 U.S.C. § 1412 (a)(11)(A), the Court also ruled that the Arkansas Department of Education was already ensuring that Conway Human Development Center was in compliance with the IDEA and that the Arkansas Department of Education would continue to do so, thereby negating the need for any of the relief requested by the DOJ.

            Much of the Court’s decision was based upon testimony of our experts who provided excellent reports based upon sound methodology and a superior analysis of the facts, policies and procedures in the State of Arkansas.  These experts were carefully selected by our attorneys.  Our office worked with these experts, as well as with State agencies and the management of the Center, to form the best defense of the Arkansas systems.  We believe that this case may have particular significance to the many states agencies that may be or have already been investigated by the DOJ.  The case may also serve as persuasive precedent for many other district courts facing these issues with similar facts.  A copy of the full decision can be found by clicking on the OPINION icon above.