On April 06, 1994, a person with traumatic brain injury brought suit against various Maryland state officials under the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. §1983, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq. in the U.S. District Court for the ...
read more >
On April 06, 1994, a person with traumatic brain injury brought suit against various Maryland state officials under the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. §1983, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The plaintiff, represented by legal services attorneys, asked the Court for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that the state failed to implement the recommendations of treating professionals and/or the parties' experts to provide community-based rather than institutional care.
In February 1995, the plaintiffs agreed to withdraw their motion for Class Certification in light of the defendants' assurance that the state would apply individual relief granted to all other persons similarly situated and in light of the fact that non-party beneficiaries can enforce the Court's order pursuant to F.R.C.P. 71.
Pursuant to an agreement among the parties, discovery was conducted on a group of 12 representative plaintiffs chosen by plaintiffs' counsel and which included nine traumatically brain injured patients and three developmentally disabled patients.
On July 31, 1996, the Court (Judge Catherine C. Blake) the plaintiffs' cross-motions for summary judgment on the grounds that the Court's jurisdiction did not end when the representative plaintiffs were released from state institutions, that issues of material fact existed regarding the ADA claim.
Beginning in September 1996, the Court held a 32-day bench trial which concluded on September 15, 1997. Afterwards, both parties submitted post-trial memoranda regarding the impact of the Supreme Court's decision in Olmstead v. L.C..
On September 27, 2001, the Court (Judge Blake) granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that the plaintiffs received medical treatment and were kept safe and reasonably free from bodily restraint in accordance with reasoned judgment of treating professionals and ADA did not require fundamental alteration of State's programs. Accordingly, the case was closed.Kunyi Zhang - 02/18/2011