Roll v. Howard
| Decision Date | 12 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | 121,447 |
| Parties | Catherine Roll, a Disabled Person, by and Through Her Co-guardians Teresa Roll Kerwick and Mary Ann Burns, Appellant, v. Laura Howard, Secretary of the Kansas Department for Aging and Disability Services, and Mike Dixon, Superintendent of the Parsons State Hospital and Training Center, Appellees. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Catherine Roll, a Disabled Person, by and Through Her Co-guardians Teresa Roll Kerwick and Mary Ann Burns, Appellant,
v.
Laura Howard, Secretary of the Kansas Department for Aging and Disability Services, and Mike Dixon, Superintendent of the Parsons State Hospital and Training Center, Appellees.
No. 121,447
Supreme Court of Kansas
August 12, 2022
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
1.
A case is moot when it is clearly and convincingly shown the actual controversy has ended, the only judgment that could be entered would be ineffectual for any purpose, and it would not impact any of the parties' rights.
2.
In order to be entitled to an award of costs and fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) (2018), a party must demonstrate they are the prevailing party.
3.
A "prevailing party" is the party that has been awarded some relief by the court on the merits of at least some of the claims. Generally, when a case is dismissed as moot without a judgment by the court on the merits of any of the claims or a court-ordered consent decree, there is no prevailing party entitled to an award of attorney fees even though a party may have achieved the desired result of the litigation.
Review of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in 59 Kan.App.2d 161, 480 P.3d 192 (2020). Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; Faith A.J. Maughan, judge.
David P. Calvert, of David P. Calvert, P.A., of Wichita, and Stephen M. Kerwick, of Wichita, argued the cause and were on the briefs for appellant.
Arthur S. Chalmers, assistant attorney general, argued the cause, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, was with him on the briefs for appellee.
Per Curiam:
The defendants sought to relocate Catherine Roll, an individual with significant mental and physical disabilities, from the Parsons State Hospital and Training Center (Hospital), where she has been a long-term resident, to a community-based treatment center. Roll, through her guardians, resisted such a transfer and contended that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Social Security Act (SSA) prohibited the defendants from changing her placement without her approval. The district court held that she did not have a statutory right to remain at the Hospital. The Court of Appeals affirmed that order, and we granted review.
We dismiss the appeal as moot. But in order to explain this determination, we find it necessary to recount the long and convoluted course the litigation in this case has taken.
Catherine Roll was born in 1955. She has had developmental delays since infancy and developed schizophrenia as a teenager. She was in mainstream public schooling into second grade, when she was transferred to parochial schooling specializing in children with intellectual and developmental disabilities. She was eventually placed in the Larned State Hospital for a short time and then, in 1970, transferred to Parsons State Hospital. She has been on a long-term regimen of psychotropic medication to treat her schizophrenia.
Roll had a generally successful experience at the Hospital, recently achieving 96 percent of her treatment objectives. She also appeared to be happy and comfortable at the Hospital. She would go out into the community with escorts approximately eight times a month, including trips to Walmart, manicures, and baseball games. Roll had some work duties at the Hospital, including tasks such as folding and shredding papers and delivering things to staff members. She received physical therapy for an ankle injury and other conditions.
Roll's parents died in the late 1990s. Teresa Kerwick and Mary Ann Burns are Roll's sisters, and they became her co-guardians in 2002.
In the spring of 2016, Hospital staff contacted Teresa and told her the Hospital had to cut approximately 1.3 million dollars from its operating budget, and Roll was a good candidate for transfer from the facility. On June 8, 2016, Teresa received a letter informing her that she needed to find a community care institution or Roll would be discharged to the guardians' homes. Believing that community-based residential centers would provide less desirable services for Roll and that she benefited from the long-term relationship she had with the Hospital staff and her familiarity with the campus, the guardians ultimately rejected voluntary transfer to another facility.
On August 19, 2016, Kerwick and Burns filed a petition seeking injunctive relief and an application for a temporary restraining order seeking to prevent the defendants from discharging Roll to community services or the petitioners' homes. The original petition included only a claim that the defendants' conduct violated the ADA with an accompanying claim of a civil rights violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2018). On the same day, the district court granted an ex-parte order temporarily restraining the defendants from discharging Roll from Parsons State Hospital and Training Center. The record does not reflect that the temporary restraining order was ever converted to a
separate preliminary injunction, but the order remained in effect while the case was pending in district court.
The court granted a motion by the defendants for the appointment of a guardian ad litem to represent Roll's interests. The guardian examined a multitude of documents, including social worker assessments, psychological evaluations, and case notes, and submitted a letter to the district court. The letter noted Roll's numerous special needs, the manner in which the Hospital was meeting those needs, and the difficulty in finding an adequate substitute for the care she was receiving. It recommended retaining Roll at the Hospital. At the defendants' request, the guardian ad litem then carried out in-person interviews with Roll, the Hospital staff, and representatives of community treatment facilities, and issued a follow-up letter modifying his recommendation to include the possibility of relocation to a community-based center and noting advantages to both the Hospital and the community facilities.
Roll filed a motion for summary judgment. Following multiple responses and replies, the district court denied the motion, determining that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment, and the case went to a bench trial.
Many of the witnesses were current or former Hospital staff who generally testified that Roll was in active treatment, was highly successful in responding to her treatment, did not exhibit aggressive or psychotic behavior, and was pleasant and compliant. The staff members also testified that, in their opinion, Roll would do well in a community-based program. The guardians testified about their personal experiences with Roll and explained why they did not consider any of the community-based centers suitable for placement.
After the trial, the district court granted the guardians permission to add a claim under the SSA that the proposed transfer from the Hospital violated Roll's right to choose
which facility would provide her treatment. The parties submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, as well as trial briefs on the ADA and SSA claims.
On May 23, 2019, the district court entered judgment in favor of the defendants with a 69-page journal entry including extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law. Based on the evidence presented at trial, the district court found that treatment available at a community-based program was appropriate to meet Roll's needs and that the Hospital provided a level of care and restrictions beyond what was medically necessary for Roll. In rejecting the ADA and SSA claims, the district court explained:
"There is no discrimination in the agency action initiated by Parsons State Hospital. Ms. Roll's treatment team has assessed her needs and abilities. A determination has been made that Ms. Roll is capable of living independently in a community based environment with the assistance of community service providers. This does not constitute an act of discrimination entitling Plaintiffs to injunctive relief.
. . . .
" . . . Ms. Roll's Social Work Assessment Annual Reviews, Psychological Annual Reviews, and Individual Program Plans from 2010 through 2017 supports good cause for her discharge. This documentation collectively speaks to the very issue of the adaptive living skills Ms. Roll has developed over time which make her appropriate for placement in a less restrictive living environment. This documentation, in conjunction with testimony offered by staff of Parsons State Hospital, provides evidence to the Court of her desire to partake in community based activities, her ability to work and earn wages, her ability to take care of her own hygiene needs, her ability to dress herself, her ability to exercise choices about daily living, her ability to perform various tasks to include setting a table, maintaining her bedroom, assisting with sweeping and mopping, doing art projects, working on puzzles, shopping, going out to eat, attending church, partaking in religious studies, reading her bible, reading magazines or the newspaper and communicating her wants, needs and desires."
Roll took a timely appeal to the Kansas Court of Appeals, and the district court granted Roll a stay of the effect of the judgment pending appellate resolution, effectively
keeping the temporary restraining order in place. The Court of Appeals affirmed in Roll v. Howard, 59 Kan.App.2d 161, 480 P.3d 192 (2020). The intermediate appellate court summarized its ruling in the opinion's introduction:
"Catherine Roll is a patient at Parsons State Hospital, where she has lived and been treated for an intellectual disability and schizophrenia for several decades. In 2016, the Department for Aging and Disability Services, in conjunction with Parsons, indicated an intent to transfer Roll to a more integrated community-based treatment...
To continue reading
Request your trial