On March 16, 1984, the United States filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997 et seq, against the State of Indiana, the Indiana Department of Mental Health (IDMH), and officers of various state agencies, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The government asked the court for permanent injunctive relief, alleging that conditions at Logansport State Hospital (LSH) and Central State Hospital (CSH) constituted unconstitutional conditions of confinement. Specifically, it contended that the defendants failed to provide sufficient staff, keep adequate records, provide adequate residential care, adequately communicate medical information to staff, maintain an adequate physical environment, prescribe and administer psychotropic medication safely, employ measures assuring the quality of residential care, adequately protect residents for risks associated with telephone orders, and adequately monitor and review pro re nata prescriptions of psychotropic medications.

Previously, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) notified the Governor of Indiana on June 16, 1982, and on October 6, 1983, of its intention to investigate alleged unconstitutional conditions at the institutions. State officials cooperated with these investigations and indicated, from the outset, a willingness to remedy long outstanding deficiencies at the institutions. The Governor created a Commission on Directions in Mental Health and the General Assembly appropriated a large increase in funding for capital projects in state hospitals. Consequently, state and federal officials determined to negotiate a settlement agreement rather than engage in protracted litigation.

The same day as the complaint was filed, March 16, 1984, the parties entered into a settlement agreement. The settlement agreement established (1) general principles and (2) protocols with respect to (a) increased minimum staffing, (b) monitoring the advance of objectives including staff attendance, record keeping, quality of care, staff communication, medication administration, and restraints and seclusion, (c) monitoring plans for implementation of the agreement, and (d) monitoring compliance.

On April 6, 1984, the District Court (Judge James E. Noland) approved the consent decree. Judge Nolan ordered that the decree was binding on all parties and that defendants had to give full access to the DOJ to inspect for compliance, and provided that the Court would retain jurisdiction of the matter, enabling any party to apply for further orders as necessary to ensure compliance.

We have no more information on this case.

Josh Altman - 06/15/2006


compress summary