On May 24, 2017, six patients of South Carolina’s G. Werber Bryan Psychiatric Hospital (Bryan Hospital), along with a non-profit corporation that advocates for the rights of people with disabilities - Protection and Advocacy for People with Disabilities Inc - filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. This lawsuit was brought against the South Carolina Department of Mental Health and the South Carolina Mental Health Commission, which operated Bryan Hospital. The plaintiffs, represented by the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Protection and Advocacy for People with Disabilities Inc, and private counsels, claimed violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. They sought injunctive and declaratory relief as well as attorneys’ fees and costs.
Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had a practice of arbitrarily preventing patients the opportunity to discharge from Bryan Hospital despite those patients being stable and capable of integrating with society. Furthermore, the defendants had a practice of isolating these patients, preventing them from contacting family and friends, and charging $503.00 daily for those that did not have access to medical insurance. This case was assigned to Judge Richard Gergel.
On July 27, 2017, the court issued a scheduling order for discovery proceedings. The scheduling was amended twice.
On April 3, 2018, the plaintiffs moved for class certification. The plaintiffs sought the class to be defined as: “All current and future adult, non-forensic residents of G. Werber Bryan Psychiatric Hospital (“Bryan”) who, with appropriate supports and services, would now or in the future be able to live in an integrated community setting and who do not oppose living in an integrated community setting.” The parties informed the court that they had begun mediation in July of 2018, but discovery continued during this time.
The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify the class on August 21, 2018, and subsequently denied their motion to reconsider the issue on September 7, 2018. Discovery and mediation continued into 2019.
On February 25, 2019, after the death of one of the plaintiffs, his attorneys stipulated to dismissal of the claims only so far as they relate to that plaintiff. Two days later, on February 27, 2019, the attorneys for the defendants submitted a letter informing the court that the mediation had resulted in a successful settlement of the claims. That same day, the court dismissed the case without prejudice for 60 days, giving both parties the opportunity to reopen the action if the settlement was not consummated. The contents of the private settlement agreement were not made publicly available. On March 14, 2019, after stipulation to dismissal, the case was dismissed with prejudice. This case is now closed.
Sean Whetstone - 07/19/2018
Alex Moody - 04/21/2020
compress summary
