On December 11, 2006, the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division sent a "findings letter" to the governor of Texas, advising him of the results of its investigation into conditions and practices at the Lubbock State School ("LSS"), which housed people with developmental disabilites. The DOJ advised that its investigation found that conditions and services at LSS substantially departed from generally accepted standards of care.
On December 1, 2008, the DOJ issued additional "findings letters" regarding its investigation of additional State-Sponsored Living centers (SSLCs) for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (ID/DD) in Abilene, Austin, Benham, Corpus Christi, Denton, El Paso, Lufkin, Mexia, Richmond, San Angelo, and San Antonio, Texas. They identified significant deficiencies in care at these facilities and identified remedial measures to improve their care.
On June 26, 2009, the U.S. Attorney General filed suit against the state of Texas, the governor, the Texas Department of Aging and Disability, the Texas Department of State Health Services, and the superintendents of the thirteen state-operated facilities for people with ID/DD to whom it had issued findings letters. 2009 WL 2350318. The suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997. The complaint claimed violations of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, Title XIX of the Social Security Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12132. It alleged that the facilities failed to provide its residents with reasonably safe conditions, adequate healthcare, adequate therapeutic or psychological services, or proper evaluation for placement in the most integrated settings. The A.G. sought injunctive relief to halt these unlawful practices and comply with the relevant laws.
On that same day, the parties filed an joint settlement agreement with the court regarding services provided for people with ID/DD in these facilities, as well as the transition of those individuals into the most integrated settings appropriate to their needs. 2009 WL 5053774. The settlement agreement included plans for improvement as well as ongoing monitoring and enforcement provisions. The agreement stated that the court would retain jurisdiction over the case for five years, provided the facilities had reached substantial compliance for at least one year. The case was assigned to Judge Sam Sparks.
On June 27, 2009, Judge Sparks approved the parties' joint settlement agreement and conditionally dismissed the suit subject to the appointment of monitors to evaluate ongoing efforts to comply with the agreement. Judge Sparks retained the court's jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.
In January 2010, the monitors and expert consultants conducted baseline reviews of each facility. Beginning in July 2010, compliance reviews were completed every 6 months for each facility. This continued until 2015, with the exception of a three month period in 2013.
On October 11, 2012, Judge Sparks issued an order establishing parameters for the monitors and their communications with the Texas state legislature, allowing them to answer, decline, or postpone their responses to questions as they saw fit. It also allowed for counsel for the United States and the State of Texas and its relevant agencies to be present for these meetings between the monitors and legislature.
In January 2013, the parties agreed to delay the four-year report until June 2014. That same month, Judge Sparks approved the parties' request to postpone monitoring inspection dates to coincide with the postponement of the production of the four-year report.
On June 23, 2014, the parties filed a joint report with the court by three monitors who had been visiting the facilities approximately every six months over the past four years. By the time the report was prepared, each facility had undergone seven compliance review visits. The monitors reported that the facilities made significant progress towards compliance with the agreement, but that it was unlikely that Texas would achieve substantial progress on most of the provisions any time soon. It noted that no facility was fully in compliance and that only 3 of the facilities had achieved substantial compliance with any substantive provision (e.g., minimum common elements of clinical care, protection from harm- restraints, etc.). They also made statewide recommendations for change across the centers. For example, it noted that system-wide action was sorely needed to decrease the use of restraints on patients for routine medical and dental care so that staff used restraints only when safe and appropriate. As an additional example, it noted that four facilities failed to timely report incidents and allegations of abuse and neglect within the facility and/or to law enforcement or protective services.
On August 29, 2014, the court granted the parties' joint motion to suspend late 2014 monitoring visits and set the next round of monitoring visits for 2015. In their motion requesting this order, the parties explained that they sought suspension of monitoring in order to restructure the monitoring approach to focus more directly on outcomes for individuals. They also provided recommendations for action across the state-supported living system.
On January 14, 2015, the parties notified the court to agreed upon modifications to the monitoring framework moving forward. For unknown reasons, no additional documents were filed nor court orders issued on this case after this notification.
The case is likely closed.
Mike Fagan - 05/30/2008
Veronica Portillo Heap - 10/05/2018
compress summary
