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