Filed Date: Jan. 7, 2010
Closed Date: Jan. 17, 2017
Clearinghouse coding complete
According to the press release issued by the Justice Department regarding this case, the facts were as follows: On December 7, 2007, the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) began an investigation into the care and treatment of mental health patients at Kings County Hospital Center (KCHC)'s Behavioral Health Service (BHS). "The investigation uncovered systemic deficiencies that violated the constitutional and civil rights of patients with psychiatric disabilities. These violations included failure to protect patients from harm, failure to treat the psychiatric disabilities of patients, the use of drugs to sedate rather than treat patients, failure to provide adequate and individualized discharge planning and follow-up services, falsification of patient medical records, and failure to respond promptly to medical emergencies." These violations and others contributed to the death of at least one patient during the course of the investigation. The DOJ notified the defendants of their findings in a letter on January 30, 2009.
The parties spent a year negotiating an agreement, with the understanding that that DOJ would file a lawsuit. The suit and the settlement were then filed together. The purpose of this was to memorialize the suit and allow the court to enforce the settlement. On January 7, 2010, the U.S. filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York. The plaintiff sued the City of New York, the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, and the Kings County Hospital Center in Brooklyn, New York under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act and the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act. The plaintiff sought injunctive and declaratory relief to improve conditions at KCHC and remedy the conduct alleged in the findings letter. The court assigned District Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto to the case.
On January 8, 2010, the court issued a consent judgment. The judgment stated that in entering into the agreement, the defendants did not admit any violation of federal law, and that the agreement was not to be used as evidence of their liability in other legal proceedings.
The agreement set out minimum remedial measures for the defendants to implement, including provisions for protection from harm, mental health care, behavioral management, medical and nursing care, quality assurance, fire and life safety, discharge and aftercare planning, KCHC hospital policies, and staff training and policy manuals and accountability. The agreement stated that the defendants would implement the necessary reforms immediately. It stipulated that the defendants appoint a Settlement Agreement Coordinator at KCHC to oversee compliance with the agreement, who would provide the DOJ with reports regarding compliance. Within 45 days of the consent judgment, the defendants would provide a plan for implementation. The agreement set out a termination date five years out, so long as the United States certified that the defendants had complied with all the provisions of the agreement for a year prior to termination.
On February 23, 2010, the defendants alerted the Court that they had created a plan. The defendants filed an amended plan on December 16, 2010. The plaintiff sent expert compliance teams to evaluate KCHC's progress. These reports were filed twice a year for the first three years. The letter of December 23, 2013 noted some areas for improvement in most of the areas covered in the agreement. After the December 23 visit, the court ordered the defendant to provide a plan to comply with correcting the noted deficiencies. A similar letter was sent in July of 2014, and the court sent another order to the defendant requesting a plan to comply. The biannual visits resumed from 2014 to 2016. On January 10, 2017, the expert compliance team filed a report stating that the defendant had maintained compliance for one year, and requested that the case be closed. Judge Matsumoto closed the case on January 17, 2017.
Summary Authors
Rachel Carpman (9/28/2018)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7424812/parties/united-states-v-the-city-of-new-york/
Bagenstos, Samuel R. (District of Columbia)
Campbell, Benton J (New York)
Capers, Robert L. (New York)
Calhoun, Martha Anne (New York)
Cardozo, Michael A. (New York)
Matsumoto, Kiyo A. (New York)
Bagenstos, Samuel R. (District of Columbia)
Deutsch, David (District of Columbia)
Goldberger, Michael J. (New York)
Gregg, Tammie (District of Columbia)
Holder, Eric H. Jr. (District of Columbia)
King, Loretta (District of Columbia)
Perez, Thomas E. (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7424812/united-states-v-the-city-of-new-york/
Last updated Feb. 15, 2024, 3:15 a.m.
State / Territory: New York
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Jan. 7, 2010
Closing Date: Jan. 17, 2017
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Department of Justice
Plaintiff Type(s):
U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff
Attorney Organizations:
U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997 et seq.
Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act, 34 U.S.C. § 12601 (previously 42 U.S.C. § 14141)
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration: 2010 - 2017
Content of Injunction:
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Goals (e.g., for hiring, admissions)
Issues
General:
Food service / nutrition / hydration
Informed consent/involuntary medication
Reassessment and care planning
Sanitation / living conditions
Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Sexual abuse by residents/inmates
Assault/abuse by staff (facilities)
Assault/abuse by non-staff (facilities)
Disability and Disability Rights:
Medical/Mental Health:
Mental health care, unspecified
Type of Facility: