Hi5!
Class Action Lawsuits & HR 2032 Legislation (US Congress)
Here is a Q & A session about legislation regarding individuals with disabilities and class action lawsuits.
Share you views on either website:
Because We Care - Beyond Inclusion
I’m very curious as to why a Disability Advocacy Group would oppose this legislation. Could someone from The Arc please explain the position as to why the agency opposes this?
June 29 at 1:37am · · · Share
Posting to 2 "The Arc' Facebook pages hoping for a reply. Enjoying-the-Hi-5s-of-Autism-A-Family-Experience (Facebook)Somebody from The Arc, please explain this to me! « becausewecare1 becausewecare1.wordpress.com
'EnjoyHi5Autism' said:
"Posting to 2 "The Arc’ Facebook pages hoping for a reply." ·(7-3-2010@9:40am) [Enjoying the Hi-5s of Autism - A Family Experience']
Enjoying the Hi-5s of-Autism-A Family Experience (Facebook)
Because We Care – Beyond InclusionEnjoying the Hi-5s of-Autism-A Family Experience (Facebook)
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Because-We-Care-Beyond-Inclusion/110817819001271
Somebody from The Arc, please explain this to me! « becausewecare1 becausewecare1.wordpress.com
I’m very curious as to why a Disability Advocacy Group would oppose this legislation. Could someone from The Arc please explain the position as to why the agency opposes this?
June 29 at 1:37am ·You like this.(7-3-2010@9:40am)
The Arc of the United States said:
The Arc opposes HR 2032 because we believe that people with disabilities deserve to have their civil rights enforced vigorously. HR 2032 would not affect an individual’s ability to choose to live in an institution or to live in a community-based setting. The bill would change the rules concerning class action lawsuits. It would create a separate set of rules for people with disabilities that are different from the rules for every other citizen. People can already opt out of class actions and don’t need HR 2032 if they want to do so. The problem with HR 2032 is that months of time would pass before litigation could move forward. During that time, people who are being abused in an institution would continue to suffer abuse. The legislation would be particularly harmful to those who live in institutions and do not have family members who are actively involved in their lives. Many people who live in institutions do not have family, have been abandoned by their families, and have state guardians. Most class action lawsuits involving people who live in institutions are filed because of abuse and neglect that are happening to them in the institution or because people want to live in more integrated settings but the state refuses to provide services in the community.
Because We Care - Beyond Inclusion said:
06/29/2011 at 1:21 PM
Actually, there is a time frame in which the residents are notified and in which they must respond to the class action lawsuit – therefore, when you state that this could takes months of time is not supported.There are other issues at stake and this legislation upholds the choices that are guaranteed under the Olmstead decision.
"SECTION 1. PURPOSES; DEFINITIONS.
(a) Purposes- This Act is enacted to further carry out the Congressional intent of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 and the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Supreme Court decision in Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999) to permit individuals with disabilities and their legal representatives to choose where to live from a full continuum of options–
(1) by prohibiting class action lawsuits by federally funded entities unless the residents of ICFs/MR are given notice of the proposed action and an opportunity to opt out; and
(2) by permitting such residents and their legal representatives to intervene in such lawsuits.
SEC. 2. PROTECTING THE INTERESTS OF EACH RESIDENT OF AN ICF/MR IN CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS INVOLVING SUCH RESIDENT.
(a) In General- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no entity that receives funds from the Federal Government may use such funds to file a class action lawsuit involving the residents of an ICF/MR unless the resident (or, if there is a legal representative of the resident, such legal representative), after receiving notice of the proposed class action lawsuit, has the opportunity to elect not to have the action apply to the resident.
SEC. 3. PROTECTING THE INTERESTS OF EACH RESIDENT OF AN ICF/MR IN ACTIONS CONDUCTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THAT AFFECT THEIR CHOICE OF RESIDENCY.
SEC. 4. PRESERVATION OF STATES’ RIGHTS.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require a State (as defined for the purposes of title XIX of the Social Security Act) to include ICFs/MR services as an option under its Medicaid plan under such title.
There is nothing in this legislation that violates one’s civil rights yet much that protects – that is why I do not understand or agree with The Arc on this issue.
'EnjoyHi5Autism' said:
07/03/2011 at 7:57 AM
Thank you for sharing your perspective. Will post as a reply on ‘Enjoying the Hi-5s of Autism – A Family Experience’ at Enjoying the Hi-5s of-Autism-A Family Experience (Facebook) .
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
07/01/2011 at 8:01 PM
There is nothing in this legislation that violates one’s civil rights yet much that protects – that is why I do not understand or agree with The Arc on this issue.
Presently there is no requirement to notify the facility, resident/family/guardian of a class action lawsuit. Families generally find out about them when a suit is settled by a court decision. The issues of class actions have not been about abuse and neglect but looking at congregate care in general. In doing so, little thought is given how the influx of residents with complex and intense needs being evicted from their homes can be safely and appropriately cared for in a community setting
No federally funded class action lawsuit has been filed in response to alleged abuse and neglect in over 15 years. All such class action lawsuits have alleged a lack of opportunity for community inclusion – meaning geared at closure – meaning denial of civil rights as guaranteed under the Olmstead Decision.
In the case of reports of legitimate abuse and neglect, CMS (the federal oversight agency) must address these allegations immediately. A class action lawsuit is not used in these cases.
Again, opposing this bill only denies the guaranteed civil rights of some of our citizens. The supporting reasons for opposition as outlined by The Arc are fictional and are only used as scare tactics by that agency to gather support for their agenda of closing congregate care settings.
"Enjoying the Hi-5s of Autism - A Family Experience" {post} Because We Care - Beyond Inclusion said: 06/29/2011 at 1:21 PM Actually, there is a time frame in which the residents are notified and in which they must respond to the class action lawsuit – therefore, when you state that this could takes months of time is not supported.
This legislation actually protects those who chose the ICF/MR as their home and gives them and/or their guardians the choice that is guaranteed. Not supporting this legistlation violates one’s civil rights. One would not need a class action lawsuit in the case of abuse – I believe The Arc is using that as the selling point but that is not the issue.
There are other issues at stake and this legislation upholds the choices that are guaranteed under the Olmstead decision.
"SECTION 1. PURPOSES; DEFINITIONS.
(a) Purposes- This Act is enacted to further carry out the Congressional intent of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 and the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Supreme Court decision in Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999) to permit individuals with disabilities and their legal representatives to choose where to live from a full continuum of options–
(1) by prohibiting class action lawsuits by federally funded entities unless the residents of ICFs/MR are given notice of the proposed action and an opportunity to opt out; and
(2) by permitting such residents and their legal representatives to intervene in such lawsuits.
SEC. 2. PROTECTING THE INTERESTS OF EACH RESIDENT OF AN ICF/MR IN CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS INVOLVING SUCH RESIDENT.
(a) In General- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no entity that receives funds from the Federal Government may use such funds to file a class action lawsuit involving the residents of an ICF/MR unless the resident (or, if there is a legal representative of the resident, such legal representative), after receiving notice of the proposed class action lawsuit, has the opportunity to elect not to have the action apply to the resident.
SEC. 3. PROTECTING THE INTERESTS OF EACH RESIDENT OF AN ICF/MR IN ACTIONS CONDUCTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THAT AFFECT THEIR CHOICE OF RESIDENCY.
SEC. 4. PRESERVATION OF STATES’ RIGHTS.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require a State (as defined for the purposes of title XIX of the Social Security Act) to include ICFs/MR services as an option under its Medicaid plan under such title.
There is nothing in this legislation that violates one’s civil rights yet much that protects – that is why I do not understand or agree with The Arc on this issue.
[Reply posted on 'Because We Care - Beyond Inclusion' - http://becausewecare1.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/somebody-from-the-arc-please-explain-this-to-me/#comment-77 ]
2 seconds ago · · 1 personYou like this.
07/03/2011 at 8:06 AM
Thank you for sharing your perspective. Will post as a reply on ‘Enjoying the Hi-5s of Autism – A Family Experience’ at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Enjoying-the-Hi-5s-of-Autism-A-Family-Experience/135895773111543?ref=ts .
ENJOY!
References
49:55Added to queue 20 Years of the Americans with Disabilities Act
Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, White House Domestic Policy Advisor Melody Barnes and others speak at a White House ...
2:30Added to queue 1999 US Supreme Court Decision Olmstead vs. LC/EW
Supreme Court Upholds ADA 'Integration Mandate' in Olmstead decision On June 22, 1999 in Washington, DC the Supreme Court affirmed the right of ...
Marna Ares, Part 01 of 17: "DD Council for Colorado"
every state and territory because of the developmental disabilities bill of rights and it was passed in the 70's and so there have been ...
Start playing at search term (0:44) 
