This case, filed January 29, 2020, objected to the closure of two Pennsylvania intermediate care facilities for individuals with intellectual disabilities (ICF/IID) (the Polk Center and the White Haven Center) and the rights of the individuals residing in those facilities. It is what some describe as a "reverse-Olmstead" lawsuit. (See Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999) (ADA guarantees the right to receive disability-related services in the community, where appropriate).

The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania by family members and guardians of residents of the two facilities in a class action lawsuit. Plaintiffs were represented by private counsel. Defendants were Pennsylvania Governor Wolf, the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services, the Deputy Secretary of the Pennsylvania Office of Development Programs, the Facility Director of the Polk Center, and the Facility Director of the White Haven Center.

According to WENY News, in August of 2019 Governor Wolf announced a plan to close the state centers over the course of three years. Instead, the state planned to move residents to "community residences," arguing that such residences are superior to "institutional" residences like Polk or White Haven.

Plaintiffs alleged that this plan violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Medicaid Act, and the Fourteenth Amendment.

Specifically, the cause of action under the ADA alleged that residents cannot be discharged or transferred without consent from the residents themselves or the residents' guardians. The Section 504 cause of action alleged that Pennsylvania's new plan would not administer care for White Haven or Polk residents in "the most integrated setting appropriate," therefore violating regulations that implement Section 504. Meanwhile, the Medicaid Act cause of action claimed that the new plan was not in compliance with obligations imposed on Pennsylvania by the federal government in return for federal funding. Those obligations included the option to live in an ICF/IID for qualifying Pennsylvanians. Finally, lawsuit alleged that the new plan constituted a violation of the residents' substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth and/or Fourth Amendment. The complaint claimed that moving residents "to the community" would deny residents "a humane existence."

The case is ongoing. Only the initial complaint, a summons to all defendants, a reissue of that summons, and a waiver of service by all defendants have been processed by the Court.

Jack Hibbard - 05/20/2020


compress summary