Iowa Prot. and Adv. Services v. Gerard Treatment, C 01-3013 - MWB.
| Citation | 274 F.Supp.2d 1063 |
| Decision Date | 04 August 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. C 01-3013 - MWB.,C 01-3013 - MWB. |
| Parties | IOWA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff, v. GERARD TREATMENT PROGRAMS, L.L.C., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
v.
GERARD TREATMENT PROGRAMS, L.L.C., Defendant.
Page 1064
Sharon K. Malheiro, Davis Brown Koehn Shors & Roberts, Des Moines, IA, Suzie A. Berregaard, Iowa Protection & Advocacy Services, West Des Moines, IA, for Plaintiff.
C. Bradley Price, De Vries, Price & Davenport, PC, Mason City, IA, for Defendant.
BENNETT, Chief Judge.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION..........................................................1065
A. Prior Litigation...................................................1065
B. Factual Background To The Present Standoff.........................1066
C. IPAS's Motion For Contempt.........................................1069
II. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES..............................................1070
A. The Parties' Written Arguments.....................................1070
B. The Parties' Oral Arguments........................................1071
III. LEGAL ANALYSIS........................................................1071
A. Standards For Contempt.............................................1071
B. Application Of The Standards.......................................1073
1. Context of the demand for information...........................1073
2. Are the requested disclosures required by the Final Order?......1074
a. Does ¶ 5 of the Final Order require the requested
disclosures?................................................1074
b. Does ¶ 1 of the Final Order require the requested
disclosures?................................................1075
i. Incorporation of 42 C.F.R. § 51.42(e)......................1076
ii. Incorporation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 10805 and 15043...............1078
3. Summary......................................................1079
IV. CONCLUSION............................................................1080
The plaintiff advocacy agency has filed a motion for contempt in this action premised on the refusal of the defendant psychiatric institution for children to provide a list of the residents of the institution along with the names and addresses of the residents' respective guardians or other legal representatives. The advocacy agency contends that the institution's conduct is not only contrary to federal statutes and regulations, but contrary to a final order entered in this action by this court, which enjoined the psychiatric institution from preventing or interfering with access by the advocacy agency to the residents, records of residents, and facilities of the institution, as provided by federal law, and
Page 1065
specified the conditions under which the institution is required to provide the advocacy agency with certain kinds of access to residents and records. The institution, however, contends that the advocacy agency has failed to cite any provision of this court's final order, a federal statute, or a federal regulation that would require the institution to disclose the requested information. Moreover, the institution contends that state and federal laws actually bar it from disclosing such information. In response, the advocacy agency contends that any state-law bars on disclosures are preempted by its governing statutes and that its demand for disclosures falls within exceptions stated in federal statutes that the institution raises as a bar.
In this action, plaintiff Iowa Protection and Advocacy Services, Inc. (IPAS), originally asserted that defendant Gerard Treatment Programs, L.L.C. (Gerard), a psychiatric institution for children, had denied or interfered with IPAS's access to information essential to its investigation of the death of one resident of Gerard's treatment facility in Mason City, Iowa, and IPAS's determination that there was probable cause to believe that other residents of the Gerard facility were in jeopardy of abuse or neglect. WAS asserted that Gerard's conduct violated the Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals Act of 1986, as amended in 1991 (PAMII Act), 42 U.S.C. § 10801 et seq., and the "Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights" provision of the Developmental Disabilities Act of 1984, as amended (DDA), 42 U.S.C. § 6042, since repealed, revised, and recodified at 42 U.S.C. § 15043.
Eventually, on July 17, 2001, this court entered a Preliminary Injunction enjoining Gerard from preventing or interfering with access by IPAS to the residents, records of residents, and facilities of Gerard's Mason City facility, as provided by federal law, and specifying the conditions under which Gerard was required to provide IPAS with certain kinds of access to residents and records. See Iowa Protection and Advocacy Services, Inc. v. Gerard Treatment Programs, L.L.C., 152 F.Supp.2d 1150 (N.D.Iowa 2001); see also Iowa Protection and Advocacy Services, Inc. v. Gerard Treatment Programs, L.L.C., 2001 WL 34008485 (N.D.Iowa July 17, 2001) (slip op.) (lifting stay on preliminary injunction). The parties then worked toward an agreement on the language of a Final Order, proposed by the court, that would be dispositive of the case. The court ruled on the few disputes about proposed language of the Final Order that the parties were unable to resolve and entered its Final Order in this case on June 14, 2002. See Final Order.
The portions of the June 14, 2002, Final Order that IPAS contends are pertinent here are the following:
DEFENDANT GERARD TREATMENT PROGRAMS, L.L.C. (GERARD) is hereby permanently enjoined, as follows:
1. Gerard is permanently enjoined from preventing or interfering with IPAS's access, as provided by federal law, to residents, records of residents, and facilities located at Gerard in Mason City, Iowa.
5. Monitoring and other activities.
Within twenty-four hours of written request for access, which shall identify the purpose of such access, Gerard shall provide IPAS with reasonable unaccompanied access to residents, facilities, and programs for the purposes of providing information and training and referral to programs of IPAS; providing information and training on rights of residents;
Page 1066
monitoring compliance with respect to the rights and safety of residents; inspecting, viewing, and photographing all areas of the facility which are used by residents or are accessible to residents; and any other activity of IPAS authorized by law. Such access shall be made with respect to residents' privacy interests and IPAS shall honor a resident's request to terminate an interview.
7. Binding effect. This permanent injunction shall be binding on the parties to this action, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and upon those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this order.
Final Order at ¶¶ 1, 5 & 7. Judgment was entered pursuant to the Final Order, see Judgment (docket no. 34), and there, to all appearances from the docket, the matter rested until early 2003.
The present standoff between the parties began with a letter dated January 29, 2003, from counsel for IPAS to Larry Elphic, the Executive Director of Gerard's facility in Mason City, Iowa. Plaintiff's Exhibit B. That letter was captioned "Re: Request for List of Residents and Guardians." Id. In pertinent part, the letter stated the following:
In accordance with Iowa Protection and Advocacy Services, Inc.'s federal mandate to protect and advocate for the human and legal rights of 1) persons with disabilities under the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 (PADD), 42 U.S.C. § 15001 et. seq., 2) persons with mental illness under the Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Act of 2000 (PAIMI), 42 U.S.C. § 10801 et. seq., and 3) persons with disabilities under the Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights Act (PAIR), 29 U.S.C. § 794e., and the regulations thereunder, our agency requests that you promptly provide a detailed listing of current residents at your facility, along with the names and addresses of their respective legal guardian or other legal representatives.
Id. Gerard's Executive Director, Larry Elphic, apparently responded to this letter by telephone. During the telephone conversation, Gerard contends that Mr. Elphic asked IPAS's counsel for a statement of IPAS's claimed authority to demand the requested information. While IPAS's counsel admits that the telephone call occurred, she avers in her affidavit in support of IPAS's reply that Mr. Elphic indicated that he thought that the list of guardians would likely be produced.
Whatever the precise details of the telephone call on February 12, 2003, IPAS's counsel sent Mr. Elphic another letter, this time by e-mail, on February 12, 2003. See Plaintiff's Exhibit C. That e-mail identified the statutory authority, federal and state, for IPAS, as a non-profit advocacy agency, to investigate incidents of abuse and neglect of individuals with disabilities and mental illnesses, and to monitor facilities and programs for such individuals, as well as regulations detailing the "information and individual records" that must be made available to an advocacy agency such as IPAS under various circumstances. See id. at 2-3. However, the portions of the letter that appear to the court to attempt to identify IPAS's specific authority to demand the information in question here — lists of residents and the names and addresses of their guardians or legal representatives — are the final paragraphs, which state the following:
Under the statutes and regulations, Iowa P & A must attempt to notify parents or legal guardians that they may be conducting these investigations or
Page 1067
monitoring activities, when access to their child and/or their records...
To continue reading
Request your trial