On February 22, 2016, individuals with mental illness and/or in need of addiction and substance abuse services who were exiting jails, prisons, nursing homes, mental health institutes, or who were currently homeless, filed this class-action complaint in the United States District Court for the ...
read more >
On February 22, 2016, individuals with mental illness and/or in need of addiction and substance abuse services who were exiting jails, prisons, nursing homes, mental health institutes, or who were currently homeless, filed this class-action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The plaintiffs sued the State of Colorado, the Colorado Department of Healthcare Policy and Financing, the Colorado Department of Local Affairs, and the Colorado Department of Human Services, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. They brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and Title XIX of the Social Security Act. The plaintiffs, represented by The Orchid Mental Health Legal Advocacy of Colorado, sought a permanent injunction to require defendants to ensure housing, treatment and other services be brought to scale to meet the needs of the class.
Specifically, the plaintiffs asserted that class members were forced to wait when seeking housing or treatment, or didn’t receive these services at all.
The plaintiffs sought to represent three sub-classes:
a) Adults with have “mental illness” who met the level of care for Colorado Medicaid Long Term Care Home and Community Based Services;
b) Adult patients at Colorado’s Mental Health Institutes who were soon to be released from the Colorado Mental Institutes and were in need of discharge planning; and
c) Adults who were institutionalized or at risk of institutionalization, including those who were homeless or in need of addiction care.
On June 15, 2016 the defendants filed an unopposed motion to Stay discovery and initial disclosures. Defendants expressed their concern that the Plaintiffs’ complaint was so vague and ambiguous that the Defendants could not reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading.
On July 31, 2016, the plaintiffs moved to voluntarily dismissed the case against the plaintiffs. The case is now closed.
Victoria Harp - 10/25/2017
compress summary