On December 21, 1989, attorneys for the Legal Center for People with Disabilities, and the Association for Retarded Citizens for Utah filed suit on behalf of residents of the Utah State Developmental Center in the Third Judicial District Court, Salt Lake County, Utah, challenging the treatment, care, training and services being provided to the residents. Defendants included officials of Utah State Department of Human Services and other state agencies. Plaintiffs made claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title XIX of the Social Security Act, § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 794 and Utah state law. Plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as class action status.

After plaintiffs initiated the action, the Court certified the plaintiff class, which consisted of all current residents of the Utah State Developmental Center.

A Second Amended Complaint was filed on May 11, 1993. It outlined deficiencies at the Utah State Developmental Center which included the failure to individualize program plans and provide adequate habilitation services to residents. It also chronicled the testimony from the Utah Legislative Fiscal Analyst regarding budgeting and spending at the Utah State Developmental Center in the fiscal years of 1989 and 1990.

On June 7, 1993, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement and submitted it to the Court (Judge Timothy R. Hansen) for approval. The stated goal of the Settlement Agreement was for the State of Utah to continue to promote residential environments and surroundings which allow class members the opportunity to live a life as normal as possible, and to associate with people who are both disabled and not disabled.



The Agreement provided that within four (4) years all residents of Utah State Developmental Center would receive an evaluation by an Interdisciplinary Team which would determine the services and support that would best meet that class member's needs. Each evaluation was to consider the principles of personal growth, individualization and integration of the individual into a community based setting.

Plaintiffs' attorneys monitored implementation of the Settlement Agreement provisions. As of 1997, plaintiffs' attorneys noted that three legitimate barriers to outplacement of class members existed: (1) insufficient community provider capacity, (2) outpatient mental health treatment for people with intellectual disabilities and mental illness, and (3) inadequate neurological support. Defendants were said to have been working towards addressing those issues.

Note that we do not have a copy of the Court's docket and our information on this case was otherwise limited. As such, we do not know what further case activity occurred after 1997.

Dan Dalton - 03/20/2007


compress summary