University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name U.S. v. Oregon ID-OR-0001
Docket / Court 86-961 ( D. Or. )
State/Territory Oregon
Case Type(s) Intellectual Disability (Facility)
Case Summary
On May 13, 1983, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) began in investigation pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. §1997 (CRIPA), into conditions at the Fairview Training Center in Salem, Oregon. The results of the investigation were detailed in a letter of the ... read more >
On May 13, 1983, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) began in investigation pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. §1997 (CRIPA), into conditions at the Fairview Training Center in Salem, Oregon. The results of the investigation were detailed in a letter of the DOJ's findings, issued on March 19, 1986. The DOJ determined that the conditions at Fairview were unconstitutional and included:

1. A lack of minimally adequate training for those residents in need of protection from undue risks to their personal safety and unreasonable

use of bodily restraints.

2. Inadequate medical care.

3. Inadequate numbers of and insufficiently qualified staff to render proper medical care, medical treatment, and training.

4. The failure to protect residents from abuse and neglect.

5. Serious health hazards due to unsanitary and unsafe environmental conditions.

6. Insufficient and inadequate recordkeeping and administrative practices.

On July 28, 1986, the DOJ filed a lawsuit pursuant to CRIPA and the Education of the Handicapped Act ("EHA"), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et. seq. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon to remedy the violations at Fairview.

Following the filing of the DOJ's lawsuit, a team from the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) inspected the Fairview facility, finding serious health and safety threats to the residents. Because of the violations, HCFA cut off the Medicaid funding at Fairview.

On June 23, 1987, defendants filed a counterclaim seeking declaratory and injunctive relief regarding rights to receive Medicaid funding. Defendants alleged that the HCFA would not restore Medicaid funding at Fairview unless the defendants entered into a consent decree with the DOJ in the CRIPA action. On July 31, 1987, the District Court (Judge Marsh) issued a preliminary injunction, enjoining the DOJ from refusing to restore Medicaid funding at Fairview. U.S. v. Oregon, 675 F.Supp. 1249 (D.Or. 1987). HCFA then recertified Fairview and Medicaid funding was restored.

A group of Fairview residents filed a motion to intervene in the action, alleging violations of its rights under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 720 and 794), Title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 1396 and 1396a) the Education of the Handicapped Act (20 U.S.C. § 1401), the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. Intervention was denied by the District Court and the Fairview residents. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded. U.S. v. Oregon, 839 F.2d 635 (9th Cir. 1988).

On remand, the defendants moved to dismiss the intervenors' claims for violation of the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. The District Court granted the motion and dismissed those claims. Intervenors then moved from class certification on their remaining claims.

On April 5, 1989, the District Court certified the plaintiff-intervenors class, defining the class as consisting of "all persons who have resided at Fairview since October 2, 1986, or will in the future reside there." A subclass was created for the class members of who requested and were denied community services on the basis of the severity of their handicaps, physical handicaps or their maladaptive behaviors in violation of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

The DOJ and the defendants reached a settlement of the case and a formal Consent Decree was approved and entered by the District Court (Judge Malcolm F. Marsh) on April 14, 1989, over the objection of the plaintiff-intervenors class,. The Decree called for numerous remedial measures, including the transfer of significant numbers of residents to community-based residential programs. Implementation would be monitored by DOJ. The Decree created a three-person Advisory Panel to resolve all disputes over compliance, subject to judicial review.

Following entry of Decree, litigation ensued over compliance. On August 3, 1990 the Advisory Panel issued a report finding that the defendants failed to comply with numerous provisions of the Decree and recommended a time table for remedying the deficiencies. The District Court adopted the Panel's remediation plan on September 20, 1990.

The dispute over compliance continued, resulting in the DOJ filing several contempt motions. The District Court found that while deadlines had been missed and injuries continued to occur to some residents at Fairview, the defendants were not in contempt of the Consent Decree and the Court's September 20, 1990 Order. U.S. v. Oregon, 782 F.Supp. 502 (D.Or. 1991), affirmed 28 F.3d 110 (9th Cir. 1994.)

Joint stipulated modifications to the Fairview plan were approved by District Judge Marsh on April 17, 1995, November 26, 1997, November 26, 1997, February 16, 1999 and November 12, 1999.

On July 26, 2000, the District Court granted the State of Oregon's unopposed motion to dismiss the case and terminate the Consent Decree, based on the closure of the Fairview Training Center.

No further activity was noted on the PACER docket.

Dan Dalton - 04/19/2007


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Disability
Integrated setting
Least restrictive environment
General
Assault/abuse by staff
Deinstitutionalization/decarceration
Habilitation (training/treatment)
Individualized planning
Neglect by staff
Reassessment and care planning
Record-keeping
Restraints : chemical
Restraints : physical
Sanitation / living conditions
Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)
Totality of conditions
Medical/Mental Health
ICF/MR & HCFA standards
Medical care, general
Mental Disability
Developmental disability without intellectual disability
Intellectual/developmental disability, unspecified
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701
Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997 et seq.
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendant(s) Fairview Training Center
Oregon Mental Health Division
Oregon State Board of Higher Education
Plaintiff Description All persons who have resided at Fairview since October 2, 1986, or will in the future reside there.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations None on record
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 1989 - 2000
Case Closing Year 2000
Case Ongoing No
Docket(s)
86-961 (D. Or.) 07/26/2000
ID-OR-0001-9000 PDF | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Findings Letter: Notice of Findings Regarding Fairview Training Center, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997b (a)(1) 03/15/1985
ID-OR-0001-0001 PDF | Detail
Findings Letter: CRIPA Investigation of Fairview Training Center, Salem, Oregon 03/19/1986
ID-OR-0001-0002 PDF | Detail
Complaint 06/03/1986
ID-OR-0001-0003 PDF | Detail
Opinion 07/31/1987 (675 F.Supp. 1249) (D. Or.)
ID-OR-0001-0011 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Reported Opinion 02/19/1988 (839 F.2d 635)
ID-OR-0001-0012 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Consent Decree 02/21/1989 (D. Or.)
ID-OR-0001-0006 PDF | Detail
Order 09/20/1990 (D. Or.)
ID-OR-0001-0007 PDF | Detail
Memorandum 10/02/1990 (915 F.2d 1581)
ID-OR-0001-0014 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Opinion 09/19/1991 (1991 WL 331673 / 1991 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 20758) (D. Or.)
ID-OR-0001-0015 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Opinion 10/22/1991 (782 F.Supp. 502) (D. Or.)
ID-OR-0001-0010 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Appellate Opinion 12/05/1991 (1991 WL 321057 / 1991 U.S.App.LEXIS 33661)
ID-OR-0001-0017 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Order 04/07/1992 (1992 WL 84258) (D. Or.)
ID-OR-0001-0016 PDF | WESTLAW | Detail
Memorandum 06/23/1994 (28 F.3d 110)
ID-OR-0001-0013 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Stipulated Order 04/17/1995 (D. Or.)
ID-OR-0001-0009 PDF | Detail
Judges Browning, James Robert (Ninth Circuit)
ID-OR-0001-0013
Canby, William Cameron Jr. (Ninth Circuit)
ID-OR-0001-0014
Hall, Cynthia Holcomb (Ninth Circuit, C.D. Cal.)
ID-OR-0001-0013
Hogan, Michael Robert (D. Or.) [Magistrate]
ID-OR-0001-0006
Kozinski, Alex (Ninth Circuit)
ID-OR-0001-0014
Marsh, Malcolm Francis (D. Or.)
ID-OR-0001-0007 | ID-OR-0001-0010 | ID-OR-0001-0011 | ID-OR-0001-0015 | ID-OR-0001-0016 | ID-OR-0001-9000
Norris, William Albert (Ninth Circuit)
ID-OR-0001-0017
Poole, Cecil F. (Ninth Circuit, N.D. Cal.)
ID-OR-0001-0017
Schroeder, Mary Murphy (Ninth Circuit)
ID-OR-0001-0012 | ID-OR-0001-0013
Trott, Stephen S. (Ninth Circuit)
ID-OR-0001-0014 | ID-OR-0001-0017
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Brischetto, Stephen L. (Oregon)
ID-OR-0001-9000
Collins, Jack G. (Oregon)
ID-OR-0001-0003 | ID-OR-0001-0006 | ID-OR-0001-0007 | ID-OR-0001-0010 | ID-OR-0001-0011 | ID-OR-0001-0015 | ID-OR-0001-0016 | ID-OR-0001-9000
Fiddler, Gayle D. (District of Columbia)
ID-OR-0001-0007 | ID-OR-0001-0010 | ID-OR-0001-0015
Flynn, David K. (District of Columbia)
ID-OR-0001-0012
Frohboese, Robinsue (District of Columbia)
ID-OR-0001-0003 | ID-OR-0001-0006 | ID-OR-0001-0007 | ID-OR-0001-0010 | ID-OR-0001-0011 | ID-OR-0001-0015 | ID-OR-0001-0016 | ID-OR-0001-9000
Hatton, David B. (Oregon)
ID-OR-0001-0011 | ID-OR-0001-0012 | ID-OR-0001-9000
Joondeph, Robert C. (Oregon)
ID-OR-0001-0010 | ID-OR-0001-0015 | ID-OR-0001-0016 | ID-OR-0001-9000
Katz, Cynthia L. (District of Columbia)
ID-OR-0001-0007 | ID-OR-0001-0010 | ID-OR-0001-0011 | ID-OR-0001-0015 | ID-OR-0001-0016
Lantz, Elam Jr. (Oregon)
ID-OR-0001-0007
Lerner, Louise A. (District of Columbia)
ID-OR-0001-0012
Masling, Mark S. (District of Columbia)
ID-OR-0001-9000
Meese, Edwin III (District of Columbia)
ID-OR-0001-0003
Peabody, Arthur E. Jr. (District of Columbia)
ID-OR-0001-0003
Reynolds, William Bradford (District of Columbia)
ID-OR-0001-0001 | ID-OR-0001-0002 | ID-OR-0001-0003 | ID-OR-0001-0012
Schoen, Benjamin P. (District of Columbia)
ID-OR-0001-0003
Schwartz, Jeremy I. (District of Columbia)
ID-OR-0001-0011
Turner, James P. (District of Columbia)
ID-OR-0001-0006
Defendant's Lawyers Abernethy, Pamela L. (Oregon)
ID-OR-0001-0007 | ID-OR-0001-0010 | ID-OR-0001-0011 | ID-OR-0001-0015 | ID-OR-0001-0016 | ID-OR-0001-9000
Brissenden, Diane L. (Oregon)
ID-OR-0001-0010 | ID-OR-0001-0015 | ID-OR-0001-0016
Bushong, Stephen K. (Oregon)
ID-OR-0001-9000
Crookham, Charles (Oregon)
ID-OR-0001-0016
Elden, Thomas K. (Oregon)
ID-OR-0001-0010 | ID-OR-0001-0015
Frohnmayer, David B. (Oregon)
ID-OR-0001-0007 | ID-OR-0001-0010 | ID-OR-0001-0011 | ID-OR-0001-0015
Gary, William F. (Oregon)
ID-OR-0001-0006 | ID-OR-0001-0011
Grimms, Linda DeVries (Oregon)
ID-OR-0001-0012
Klein, Glenn (Oregon)
ID-OR-0001-0011
McCulloch, John (Oregon)
ID-OR-0001-0011
Wahl, Jeffrey J. (Oregon)
ID-OR-0001-9000
Other Lawyers Hinkle, Charles F. (Oregon)
ID-OR-0001-0010 | ID-OR-0001-0015 | ID-OR-0001-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -