Michigan Ass'n for Retarded Citizens v. Smith

Decision Date30 August 1979
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 78-70384.
Citation475 F. Supp. 990
PartiesMICHIGAN ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDED CITIZENS, a non-profit Michigan Corporation, Plymouth Association for Retarded Citizens, a non-profit Michigan Corporation, David Bentley, by his next friend Sue Hickman, Andrew Foster, by his next friend Joseph G. Johnson, Laurie E. Healey, by her next friend Laura Healey, John Jay Hovey, by his next friend Lenore E. Hovey, Buddy Rae Nelson, by his next friend Jimmie N. Nelson, Carl Joseph Panicali, by his next friend Eileen Panicali, Mary Sabo, by her next friend Francis Sabo, Wendy Sampson, by her next friend Robert J. Sampson, Carolyn Szczesiul, by her next friend Mary Finn, Christine Wojtowycz, by her next friend Emilian Wojtowycz, on their behalf and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Donald C. SMITH, M. D., Individually and in his former official capacity as Director, Michigan Department of Mental Health, Vernon A. Stehman, M. D., Individually and in his official capacity as Acting Director, Michigan Department of Mental Health, Don K. Worden, Ph. D., Individually and in his official capacity as Regional Director, Michigan Department of Mental Health, William C. Womack, Individually and in his former official capacity as Director, Plymouth Center for Human Development, Evelyn Provitt, R.N., M.S., Individually and in her former official capacity as Acting Director, Plymouth Center for Human Development, David Rosen, Individually and in his former official capacity as Acting Director, Plymouth Center for Human Development, Eranell McIntosh-Wilson, Individually and in her official capacity as Director, Plymouth Center for Human Development, their agent, employees and successors, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

William J. Campbell, Michael J. Kiley, Brian J. O'Malley, David Verseput, Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service for Developmentally Disabled Citizens, Lansing, Mich., for plaintiffs.

Thomas R. Wheeker, Lansing, Mich., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION, ORDER AND DECREE

JOINER, District Judge.

On February 21, 1978, the Michigan Association for Retarded Citizens, the Plymouth Association for Retarded Citizens, and twelve individuals brought this suit against various officials in the Michigan Department of Mental Health in an attempt to improve the plight of the mentally retarded persons who were residents of the Plymouth Center for Human Development.

The suit followed a number of charges of abuse of the residents, mismanagement of the institution, and misdirection of the Department of Mental Health in the care and treatment of mentally retarded persons.

On March 3, 1978, this court officially recognized the case as a class action, noting that the named plaintiffs were representatives of all of the residents of the Plymouth Center. Also on March 3, 1978, the court entered a preliminary injunction, the substance of which had been agreed to between the parties. This injunction halted new admissions to the center, compelled compliance with federal standards for staff-to-patient ratios, assured relatives greater access to residents, ordered the separation of aggressive and defenseless residents, ordered the center to set up a system of staff accountability in which each resident would be the direct responsibility of a particular staff member, and guaranteed annual physical and mental examinations for all residents. In addition, the injunction created a group of monitors who have spent a great deal of time observing at the center and who have reported to the court on their observations.

In their seventeen monthly reports, the monitors have convinced the court that enormous progress has been made in the care and treatment of the residents of the center. This progress has been the result of the efforts of the parties to this case, their attorneys, and many other people who have shown an interest in the problems that have existed at the center.

Now, after much investigation and long negotiations, the parties have entered into a stipulation concerning the future of the Plymouth Center. This order, judgment, and decree is entered into in accordance with that stipulation.

PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND PURPOSE

1. Plaintiffs are the Plymouth Association for Retarded Citizens (hereinafter, PARC), the Michigan Association for Retarded Citizens (hereinafter, MARC), individuals named as plaintiffs and a class of plaintiffs consisting of:

a. All persons who resided at PCHD on the date the complaint herein was filed, February 21, 1978;
b. all persons who have resided at PCHD at any time since the date of the filing of the complaint, February 21, 1978;
c. all persons listed on the patient census filed with the Court who may in the future reside at PCHD provided, however, that such persons do not become members of the class until such time as they are physically residing at PCHD; and
d. all persons transferred to PCHD and meeting the provisions of paragraph eight (8) of this agreement.

PROVIDED THAT any person who has or in the future is transferred outside of Wayne County at the request of a parent or guardian, who resides outside of Wayne County, shall no longer be considered a member of the plaintiff class. This provision shall not apply to any named plaintiff. They bring this action pursuant to, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming violations of the constitutional and statutory rights of persons who are or may be institutionalized at PCHD, and seeking for such persons habilitation of appropriate, less restrictive residential alternatives suitable to their needs. Defendants are the administrative officials with the Michigan Department of Mental Health charged with the responsibility for providing the members of the Plaintiff class with mental health services.

2. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this class action, pursuant to, inter alia, 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3), 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 6010, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; this class action is appropriately designated as coming within the provisions of Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

3. Jurisdiction is retained by the Court until this Decree has been fully implemented, to enable any party to apply for such further orders as may be necessary or appropriate for the interpretation, implementation, enforcement, or modification of the terms of this Decree, as provided for by the terms of this Decree.

4. This Decree shall be as binding on the Defendants' successors, officers, agents and employees as on the Defendants themselves. Defendants and their successors will take actions necessary to secure and are responsible for full implementation of this Decree, including coordinating with other agencies and officials of the state of Michigan and other governmental entities the carryingout of responsibilities necessary to the implementation of this Decree.

5. The parties and the Court deem this Decree to be pertinent for the final settlement of the case; to the extent current information renders final, substantive settlement of an issue impracticable, the parties agree to collaborate and negotiate and to seek direct judicial resolution only as a last resort, and as provided by the terms of this Decree.

6. The Preliminary Injunction agreed to March 3, 1978, by the parties, is no longer binding and no longer has the force and effect of law.

7. Based upon the record and consideration of submissions by the parties and the Monitoring Committee established by this Court in conjunction with this case, this Decree may be entered by the Court and is consented to by the parties for the purpose of establishing a commitment to the development of a comprehensive system of appropriate, less restrictive treatment, training, and support services for each member of the Plaintiff class. All mentally retarded individuals can and should live in the more normalized environment of the community and do not require institutionalization, given the development of necessary habilitation and support services in the community.

PLYMOUTH CENTER FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

8. Defendants agree to halt new admission of residents to the PCHD. A new admission is defined as the admission of a person whose name does not appear on the `patient census' and is not on a leave status from the PCHD as of the date of entry of this Decree. Defendants may transfer residents of other Department of Mental Health institutions for the developmentally disabled to PCHD for purposes of effecting or preparing for a community placement in Wayne County, provided that transfers will be made to PCHD only in numbers equivalent to or less than the actual placements into the community of class members. No such transferred resident will be counted in determining Defendants' compliance with paragraph nineteen (19) of this Decree until forty-five (45) days have elapsed from the date of such transfer to the PCHD; similarly, no such person will be considered a member of the Plaintiff class until said forty-five (45) day period has elapsed, and only in the event such person is still a resident of the PCHD.

9. Defendants agree to maintain on all PCHD living units a direct care staff-to-resident ratio which meets the standards of the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare for certification of an institution as an intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded. Further, with respect to Malloy, Kennedy, Sullivan and Binet Halls, such ratio will be maintained as follows: on the day and afternoon shifts one (1) direct care staff person to four (4) residents, and on the midnight shift one (1) direct care staff to eight (8) residents. The staffing provided for in this paragraph means that such staff shall be physically present on the ward or living unit in sufficient numbers in relation to the residents actually on the ward or living unit to maintain the ratios set forth by this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Michigan Ass'n for Retarded Citizens v. Smith
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • August 21, 1981
    ...who reside at the Plymouth Center." Judge Joiner entered a comprehensive memorandum opinion, order and decree, reported at 475 F.Supp. 990 (E.D.Mich.1979), which is in accordance with the The opinion contemplates a significant reduction in the population of the Plymouth Center and, the Unio......
1 books & journal articles
  • The Potential Risks of Relying on Title Ii's Integration Mandate to Close Segregated Institutions
    • United States
    • Georgia State University College of Law Georgia State Law Reviews No. 26-3, March 2010
    • Invalid date
    ...(D. Me. 1982) (Maine); Garrity v. Gallen, 522 F. Supp. 171 (D.N.H. 1981) (New Hampshire); Michigan Ass'n for Retarded Citizens v. Smith, 475 F. Supp. 990 (E.D. Mich. 1979) (Michigan), ajfg judgment, 657 F.2d 102 (6th Cir. 1981); Evans v. Washington, 459 F. Supp. 483 (D.D.C. 1978) (District ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT