Messier v. Southbury Training School
The State of Connecticut signed a settlement agreement in the 1994 class action lawsuit, Messier v. Southbury Traning School. The settlement agreement was filed with the court on July 12, 2010 and only addresses the issue of documenting professional judgments in the OPS. This class action lawsuit was brought by a class of plaintiffs who were challenging conditions of the facility, protections from harm, medical care, DNR orders and community placement. Judge Ellen Bree Burns decided that the State of Connecticut was not in violation of the 14th amendment. Judge Burns deciding that Plaintiffs failed to prove that relief was appropriate under all claims except for those concerning compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Judge Burns ruled that although professional judgments were being made regarding community placement, which was in conformance with the ADA, Connecticut was not properly documenting those judgments. The settlement agreement provides plaintiffs with a great deal of assurances that professional judgments will be documented in the future. Neither the settlement nor the Judge's original ruling in 2008 directs the closure of STS, although Plaintiffs’ aim was for the closure of the facility. STS will remain open for those individuals who wish to continue to live there and will receive comprehensive supports to meet their needs.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys are seeking fees in this case against the State of Connecticut in the amount of $6.9 million. The State of Connecticut is adamantly opposing Plaintiffs’ fee request for obvious reasons.
Potts v. Step by Step, Inc.
Step by Step, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation providing supervision and residence for individuals with mental retardation and disabilities, was sued by the family of Julie Ann Potts who resided at a community home operated by Step by Step, Inc. Julie Ann died in the hospital after employees of Step by Step failed to provide her with proper care. Judge Harold A. Thomson ruled that Potts failed to plead gross negligence in her Complaint and dismissed the Complaint on the grounds that the Mental Health and Mental Retardation Act (MHMRA), 50 P.S. §4603, holds Mental Health and Mental Retardation providers immune to suits for regular negligence. The Court ruled that according to the Act, providers for individuals with mental retardation are held to a lower standard and a plaintiff must prove gross negligence or incompetence, even in the case of a resident’s death.
Potts appealed the Court of Common Pleas decision. The Superior Court reviewed the case. In their review, they state: In Albright v. Abington Memorial Hospital, 548 Pa. 268, 696 A.2d 1159, 1164 (Pa. 1997), the Court stated that gross negligence is “a form of negligence where the facts support substantially more than ordinary carelessness, inadvertence, laxity, or indifference. The behavior of the defendant must be flagrant, grossly deviating from the ordinary standard of care.” Id. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania referred to this definition of gross negligence in his opinion to say that a jury could still find that Step by Step committed gross negligence with the facts plead in the original Complaint. The Superior Court remanded this case back to the District Court finding that a jury could find that Step by Step’s actions constituted gross negligence or incompetence whereby Step by Step would not be immune to liability.
This case is important because it makes clear to Pennsylvania residents that the MHMRA does not only apply to admissions and discharges, it applies to day-to-day care as well. Plaintiffs must prove the community provider committed gross negligence in order to recover.
