| Home » Informative Articles & Documents » United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit leaves Rolland V. Patrick Settlement Agreement standing, emphasizes state obligations. |
 |
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit leaves Rolland V. Patrick Settlement Agreement standing, emphasizes state obligations. |
2/8/2010 |
| In
its January 19, 2010 ruling on the appeal by 43 residents of Seven
Hills Pediatric Center (SHPC), Goton, of the Settlement Agreement
between the Plaintiff Class (Loretta Rolland and others) and the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts, the Court of Appeals affirmed the adequacy of that
agreement. However, the Court concluded by adding: “The Commonwealth
has made many commitments to this court about ensuring the fairness
of the placement process going forward, and we expect that they will
abide by those commitments.” Attorneys for the Commonwealth argued that, contrary to the Settlement Agreement’s statement that Massachusetts had “recommended for community placement” 666 individuals including most adult SHPC residents, and despite the Settlement Agreement’s statement that “the defendants [Massachusetts] will place a total of 640 class members from the Rolland Community Placement List into the community,” being on the Community Placement List does not imply that an individual will be moved and 640 is not a quota. They stated that the Commonwealth will not actually propose transitioning an individual from their current home until conducting a so-called PASSAR review involving medical and other professional staff familiar with the individual as well as their family members, and until determining that a move would not threaten the individual’s safety. Even though the Rolland V. Cellucci agreement’s commitment that individuals who oppose being moved would not have to be moved was left out of the Rolland V. Patrick Settlement Agreement, the Commonwealth asserted that individuals have rights of appeal. These are among the commitments to which the Court refers in its concluding statement. The families of the SHPC residents are eternally grateful to Attorneys Stephen M. Sheehy, Anthony S. Fiotto, Jr., Michaelle R. Gonnam, and Christiaan H. Highsmith (the latter three being of Goodwin Procter, LLP) for their efforts in this case. While the families are disappointed in the outcome and continue to believe that the basic human and civil rights of their wards have been violated by the upholding of the agreement and especially by the forced membership of SHPC residents in a class created by the actions of attorneys hostile to the well-being of their wards, the families join the Court in the hope that the Commonwealth will indeed live up to its commitments. |