Conner v. Branstad

MR-IA-001-003
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION

EVERT CONNER, e t a l . ,

*

Plaintiffs,

*

vs.

*

TERJRY BRANSTAD, et al - ,

*

Defendants.

*

and

*

RUSS and SYBIL FINKEN, et al. , *

Intervenors-

*

Civil No. 4-86-CV-30871 CONSENT DECREE

CONTENTS

A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Section 1 Preliminary Matters

1.01
1.02 1.03 1.04 1 .05

Introduction
Jurisdiction and Venue Class Definition Purpose and Principles Interpretation of the Decree

Section 2 Definitions

2.01 Parties

2.02 Terms

B. CLASS MEMBERS' RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS

Section 3 Rights of Class Members

3.01 General Principles

PAGE
4
4
4 4 5 5 7 8
8 10
13
13
13

Section 4 Behavioral Supports

16

4.01 General Principles . . .•

16

4.02 Behavioral Consultant

17

4.03 Guidelines for Behavioral Supports

18

4.04 Behaviors Requiring Medical Restraint

19

4.05 Emergency Procedures

2 0

4 . 06 M e d i c a t i o n s

20

S e c t i o n 5 E n t r y i n t o t h e Community S e r v i c e System . . . . 21

5.01 Notice
5.02 Application for Services 5 . 03 Referral to Case Manager 5-04 Advocacy and Self-Empowerment 5. 05 Assessment 5 . 06 Needs-Based Nature of Assessment 5.07 Assessment Report 5. 08 Referral to Community 5.09 SHS Admission Pre-Approval Procedure
for Sub-Class Members
Section 6 Individual Program Plans

21 22
22 2 3 23 24 24 24
24 27

6 . 01 General Guidelines .

27

6.02 IPP Appeal

28

Section 7 Appeal Procedures

29

7.01 General Provisions 7 . 02 Reporting

29 29

7.03 Human Rights Committees

29

C. REFOCUSING THE SERVICE DELIVERY SYSTEM

30

Section 8 Education and Training

30

8.01 Training Consortium
8.02 Funding
Section 9 Five Year Plan for Community Supports
and Services 9.01 Principles 9.02 Policy Statement 9 . 03 Development Of Five Year Plan 9 . 04 Consultants

30 31
32 32 32
32 34

- 2 -

Section 10 Iowa's State Hospital-Schools

34

10.01 General Principles Governing the

State Hospital-Schools

34

D. IMPLEMENTATION

37

Section 11 Class Notice

37

11.01 Notice of Consent Decree

37

Section 12 Funding

37

12.01 System Development

37

12.02 Budget Request

38

12.03 Funding Initiatives

39

Section 13 Legislation

39

13.01 Changes Identified

39

13.02 Personal Assistance and Family Support

40

Section 14 Planning, M o n i t o r i n g , and Dispute

Resolution

40

14.01 Enforcement

40

14.02 Meetings Between the Parties

41

14.03 Access of Counsel for Plaintiffs

41

14.04 Modification of Decree

43

Section 15 Attorneys ' Fees

4 3

15.01 Plaintiffs' Cost and Fees

43

15.02 Costs of Enforcement

43

- 3-

A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Section 1 Preliminary Matters
1.01 Introduction Plaintiffs filed this action on December 8, 1986, challenging the continuation of Iowa's institutionally based model of services for persons with developmental disabilities. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have committed numerous violations of Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. section 1396d(d) (1988); section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 794 (1988); the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. section 1400 et seq. (1988 & Supp. II 199 0) (formerly the Education of the Handicapped Act), and the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.A. section 12101, et seq. (West Supp. 1992).
1.02 Jurisdiction and Venue Jurisdiction is conferred on this court by 28 U.S.C. section 1331, section 1343(a)(3) and (4) (1988); 20 U.S.C. section 1415(e)(4) (1988 & Supp. II 1990) and 29 U.S.C. section 794 (1988). The action arises under and is authorized by 42 U.S.C. section 1983 (1988); 42 U.S.C. section 1396d (1988); 20 U.S.C. section 1415 (e)(2) (1988 & Supp. II 1990); and 42 U.S.C. section 794(a)(2) (1988).
_ 4_

1.03 Class Definition A. On September 8, 1987, this court conditionally certified the class as consisting of all persons who are or who may become residents of Glenwood or Woodward State Hospital-Schools and who could be appropriately placed in community-based living environments but who remain institutionalized. B. For purposes of this Consent Decree (hereinafter Decree), the class is defined as all persons who, on the date this Consent Decree is signed, reside at either Glenwood or Woodward State Hospital-Schools and future persons who, after the admission evaluation is completed, are admitted to inpatient status and who could be appropriately placed in community-based services. Plaintiff subclass consists of all persons who resided at Glenwood or Woodward State Hospital-Schools from the date this action was filed forward until the completion of this Decree and who reside in the community. Plaintiff subclass shall be eligible for only the supports outlined in Section 5.09 of this Decree.
1.04 Purpose and Principles A. The parties to this action agree that the interests of all class members can best be served by entering into this Consent Decree rather than by engaging in protracted, expensive litigation. B. Defendants shall make all best efforts to implement the terms of this Decree in accord with the following principles:
- 5-

Each class member is to be treated with dignity and respect for his/her individuality, in full recognition that one's personality, abilities, needs, and aspirations are not solely determined on the basis of a label or disability. All class members should have options and relevant, meaningful opportunities to make their own choices in all aspects of their lives, including amounts and types of services received, recognizing the class members' ability to accept responsibility, exercise choices,,and take risks. All class members, within available resources, retain the right to seek to choose where the class member lives. All class members have individualized needs and desires that change or vary with time and according to the person's circumstances. Needs and desires may include but are not limited to housing, personal assistance, financial security, education, vocational training, employment, sexuality, medical and dental care, socialization and companionship, friendships and family relationships, spirituality, emotional support, psychiatric treatment, crisis assistance, recreation, and transportation.
- 6-

5 . All class members will be allowed active and meaningful participation and decision-making authority in the development and implementation of the class member's Individual Program Plan (IPP).
6 . Where class members are minors or have legal guardians or other designated representatives, the parents of those minor class members, and their families, or the guardians or other designated representatives of the class members retain rights of active and meaningful participation in any and •all discussions, decisions, and consideration of options of choice, described in paragraphs 1-5 above.
1.05 Interpretation of the Decree A. This Decree is legally binding and judicially enforceable. This Decree shall be applicable to and binding upon all the parties; their officers, agents, employees, successors, and assignees; and to agencies and entities which enter into contracts with the Defendants for the provision of services which are funded in whole or in part by state funds. B. The terms of this Decree shall be interpreted consistently with its overall purposes and principles. C. This Decree is severable, in that if any section or part is determined, for whatever reason, to be void or unenforceable,
- 7-

the remainder of this Decree is to remain enforceable by the parties.
D. This Decree shall not be interpreted to diminish the rights or obligations currently accorded the parties, and or the class members' representatives by law.
Section 2 Definitions 2.01 Parties A. Plaintiffs: Named plaintiffs in this action are: Evert
Conner (deceased); Pauline Crouse (deceased), by and through her niece and legal guardian, Terri Jensen; Michael Monahan, by and through his natural mother and next friend, Lucy Monahan; Amanda Poulos, by and through her natural parents and next friends, Kenneth and Lisa Poulos; Archie Pratt, by and through his brother and legal guardian, Herschel Pratt; Pamela Schuler; and Jennalee Sturtz, by and through her natural parents and legal guardians, Lyle and Ruth Sturtz. Named plaintiffs represent the class as defined in Section 1.03 of this Decree. Iowa Protection and Advocacy Services, Inc., a private non-profit advocacy organization, joins the named Plaintiffs in asserting the rights of the class.
B. Defendants: Terry Branstad, in his official capacity as Governor of the state of Iowa; Michael V. Reagen, individually and in his official capacity as former Commissioner, Iowa Department of Human Services; Charles M. Palmer, in his official
- 8-

capacity as Director of the Iowa Department of Human Services and individually and in his official capacity as former Deputy Commissioner and Director, Division of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, Iowa Department of Human Services; Larry Jackson, individually and in his official capacity as former Deputy Commissioner and Director, Division of Community Services, Iowa Department of Human Services; Jeanne Nesbit, in her official capacity as Division Administrator, Division of Community Services, Iowa Department of Human Services; Sandra Scott, individually and in her official capacity as former Division Administrator, Division of Social Services, Iowa Department of Human Services; Michael Davis, individually and in his official capacity as Superintendent, Woodward State Hospital-School; William E. Campbell, individually and in his official capacity as Superintendent, Glenwood State HospitalSchool; and their successors and assigns.
C. Intervenors: Russ and Sybil Finken, parents of Seth J. Finken; Rita Wharnell, legal guardian of Stephen Hughes; Gloria Hucke, parent of Duane Hucke; Bill and Jan Hoff, parents of Tom Hoff; John and Evelyn Noel, parents of Lance Noel; Minoru Amemiya, parent of Michael M. Amemiya; Marjorie Stonecypher, parent of James Lechner; Kaylyn J. Bauer, legal guardian of Robert L. Russell; Avanell Baker, parent of Craig Wheeler; Glenwood State Hospital-School Parent-Family Association; Woodward State Hospital-School Parent Association; and American
- 9-

Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees/Iowa Council 61.
2.02 Terms The following definitions and acronyms shall apply to this Decree unless otherwise indicated herein: A. Administrator: The individual serving as Administrator of the Division of Mental Health, Mental Retardation, and Developmental Disabilities of the Iowa Department of Human Services, established pursuant to Iowa Code section 217.10 (1993). B. Behavioral Interventions: Actions used by staff to provide positive reinforcement for class members' socially acceptable behavior or used to help a class member learn socially acceptable behavior and avoid, reduce or eliminate inappropriate behaviors. C. Case Manager: The individual assigned to a class member, responsible for coordinating the development, implementation, and monitoring of the class member's IPP. D. Commission: The Mental Health and Mental Retardation Commission, as defined in Iowa Code section 225C.5 (1993). E. Community Supports or Services: Community-based supports for persons with developmental disabilities may include, but are not limited to, case management, community supports coordination, housing and residential supports, crisis intervention, educational and vocational training, employment
- 10 -

opportunities, social support, advocacy, family support services, personal assistance services, outpatient counseling, transportation, medical and dental care, and recreational activities.
F. Consent Decree or Decree: This document and any amendments or modifications thereto, approved by the parties and adopted by the court.
G. Department of Human Services or DHS or Department: The Iowa Department of Human Services, as defined in Iowa Code section 217.1 (1993) .
H. Designated representative or representative: The natural or adoptive parent of a minor; legal guardian; or family member, interested person, advocate or friend designated by a class member who is authorized -to assist the class member in development and implementation of the class member's Individualized Program Plan and in other decisions affecting the class member's life.
I. Director: Director of the Iowa Department of Human Services, as defined in Iowa Code section 217.5 (1993).
J. Dispute resolution: The process for resolving disputes among the parties in the implementation of this Decree, as specified in Section 14.01 of the Decree.
K. Division of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities or Division or Division of MH/MR/DD: This Division of the Iowa Department of Human Services, established pursuant to Iowa Code section 225C.3 (1993).
- 11 -

L. Effective date: The date that this Decree is filed with the court.
M. Family or Family Member: Natural or adoptive parents or siblings, spouse, children, or individual within the third degree of consanguinity to a class member.
N. Five-Year Plan For Community Supports and Services (or Five-Year Plan): The plan developed by the Department of Human Services under Section 9 of this decree.
0. Individualized Education Plan or IEP: The plan required under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C.A, sections 1400, et seq. (1990 & West Supp. 1991) as amended for all class members from birth through age twenty-one.
P. Individual Program Plan (IPP): A class member's individual service plan developed by an interdisciplinary team that represents the professions, disciplines or service areas that are relevant to the class member's needs which identifies the needs as described by a comprehensive assessment and designates those programs and supports which meet the class member's needs, as set forth in Section 6 of this decree.
Q. Iowa University Affiliated Program or IUAP: The Iowa University Affiliated Program, located at the University of Iowa in Iowa City, Iowa, established pursuant to Iowa Code sections 263.9—.13 (1993) and 42 U.S.C. sections 6061-6064 (1982 & Supp. V 1987) .
R. State Hospital-Schools (or SHS): Glenwood and Woodward State Hospital-Schools, Iowa's two state institutions for persons
- 12 -

with mental retardation, established pursuant to Iowa Code section 222.1 (1993).
S. Superintendent: The superintendents of Woodward or of Glenwood State Hospital-Schools, positions established pursuant to Iowa Code section 222.3 (1993).
B. CLASS MEMBERS' RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS Section 3 Rights of Class Members
3.01 General Principles A. Constitutional rights preserved: All class and subclass members shall maintain.,the same constitutional rights, privileges and immunities as do all other citizens of the United States and Iowa. B. Defendants, in coordination with appropriate agencies, shall adopt necessary rules or policies to implement the purpose of Iowa Code sections 225C.28B(3) and (4) (1993), which are due process and participation in development of the Individual's Program Plan. Within ninety (90) days of the effective date of this Decree, Defendants will draft any rules necessary to implement these rights provisions. A copy of the draft rules or policies will be provided to the counsel for the Plaintiffs. Such rules or policies shall include:
1. The class members' right to exercise their rights under said laws, regulations and this decree without reprisal, including reprisal in the form of denial of or termination of services.
- 13 -

2. Provisions for publishing the rights in manual form and providing copies to all class members and their designated representative.
3- Provisions for the class members' case manager to provide to the class member and his/her representative an explanation at least annually of the class member's legal and civil rights and responsibilities.
C. Defendants, in accordance with Iowa Code section 225C.28A (1993), will seek to attain the following quality standards in the provision of services to class members:
1. Provide comprehensive evaluation and diagnosis adapted to the cultural background, primary language, and ethnic origin of the person.
2. Provide an individual treatment, habilitation, and program plan.
3. Provide individualized treatment, habilitation, and program services as appropriate.
4. Provide periodic review of the individual plan. 5. Provide for the least restrictive environment and age-appropriate services. 6. Provide appropriate training and employment opportunities so that the person's ability to contribute to and participate in the community is maximized.
- 14 -

D. All of the following rights shall apply to class members:
1. Wage protection. All class members engaged in work programs shall be paid wages commensurate with the going rate for comparable work and productivity.
2. Insurance protection. Pursuant to Iowa Code section 507B.4(7) (1993), a class member shall not be denied insurance coverage by reason of mental retardation, a developmental disability, brain injury or chronic mental illness.
3. Due process. All class members retain the right to citizenship in accordance with the laws of the state.
4. Participation in planning activities. If an individual treatment, habilitation, and program plan is developed for a class member, the class member has the right to participate in the formulation of the plan.
E. Except for a violation of Iowa Code section 225C.28B(2) (1993), the sole remedy for violation of a rule adopted by the Commission to implement Iowa Code sections 225C.25 through 225.28B (1993) shall be by a proceeding for compliance initiated by request to the Division pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 17A (1993). Any decision of the Division shall be in accordance with due process of law and is subject to appeal to the Iowa district court pursuant to Iowa Code sections 17A.19 and 17A.20 (1993) by any aggrieved party. Either the Division or a
- 15 -

party in interest may apply to the Iowa district court for an order to enforce the decision of the division. Any rules adopted by the Commission to implement Iowa Code sections 225C.25 through 225C.28B (1993) do not create any right, entitlement, property or liberty right or interest, or private cause of action for damages against the state or a political subdivision of the state or for which the state or a political subdivision of the state would be responsible. Any violation of Iowa Code section 225C.28B(2) (1993) shall solely be subject to the enforcement by the commissioner of insurance and penalties granted by Iowa Code chapter 507B (1993) for a violation of Iowa Code section 507B.4(7) (1993).
F. For Section 3.01 B through E, the jurisdiction of this court is limited to review of allegations that the Defendants have failed to implement this compliance procedure established by the Iowa State Legislature.
G. Nothing in this Decree shall be construed to limit class or subclass members' rights under federal or state law.
Section 4 Behavioral Supports 4.01 General Principles Defendants shall comply with all state and federal laws and
regulations on the use of behavioral support strategies, interventions, and therapies for class members.
- 16 -

4.02 Behavioral Consultant A. Within ninety (90) days of the effective date of this Decree, Defendants shall retain a consultant(s) (hereinafter Behavioral Consultant) experienced in the assessment of challenging behaviors in persons with developmental disabilities, the development of non-aversive behavior supports plans for such individuals, and the handling of emergency behavioral situations. Defendants shall contract with the Behavioral consultant(s) to provide not less than a combination of twenty (20) contract days during the first nine (9) months of the effective date of the Decree to assist in the development and implementation of a system of procedures and safeguards for dealing with challenging behaviors of class members. These procedures and safeguards apply to all class members. Plaintiffs' counsel may recommend potential Behavioral consultants to the Defendants. In selecting the Behavioral consultant, the Defendants shall select four (4) possible consultants. The Defendants will provide the names and background information to the Plaintiffs' counsel for review and their recommendation thirty (30) calendar days prior to the proposed hire date. B. The Behavioral Consultant's responsibility will include recommending to the Defendants definitions of behavioral interventions and policy or necessary rule revisions outlining procedures and safeguards for dealing with challenging behaviors
- 17 -

of class members. Consideration shall be given to the following components:
1. A program review committee(s) established to review and revise or approve any IPP which includes aversive procedures, chemical restraints, mechanical restraints, seclusion, time-out, or personal restraints;
2. Procedures and client safeguards for dealing with behavioral emergencies which have the potential for resulting in hospitalization of the class member, either in a regular or psychiatric hospital; and
3. Emergency procedures. C. Within sixty (60) days from the conclusion of the consultation, Defendants shall draft any necessary rules or policies outlining procedures and safeguards with consideration of the recommendations of the Behavioral Consultant (s ). Any necessary rules shall be promulgated pursuant to the Iowa Administrative Procedures Act.
4.03 Guidelines for Behavioral Supports A. Positive behavioral intervention shall be made available to all class members and implemented in full compliance with state and federal law. Reasonable effort will be made to provide behavioral interventions on a planned basis, in the least intrusive manner possible, based on an assessment of the factors that contribute to the behavior and based on the rules or policies governing behavior interventions.
- 18 -

B. Reasonable effort will be made to assure that staff and support persons working with the class member follow the procedures established in the class member's behavioral intervention plan.
4 . 04 Behaviors Requiring Medical Restraint A. Medical restraint is a physician's order to physically or mechanically hold a class member or to dispense prescribed behavior-modifying medication (excluding the normal use of anesthesia) in order to either: 1.) safely administer emergency medical or dental services, or 2.) prevent a class member from engaging in an otherwise acceptable activity (e.g., walking) to aid a healing process. If the restraint serves to prevent a class member from engaging in an unacceptable activity (e.g., self-injurious behavior), it shall be provided consistent with the behavioral support plan, physician's orders, and state and federal law. B. Each class member who demonstrates anxiety or behaviors that interfere with non-emergency medical and dental care shall have included in his/her Individual Program -Plan, 'a plan for addressing this concern. The plan may include such methods as pre-visits to health care professionals, education and training about the procedures, and identification of mechanisms that assist the class member in remaining calm.
- 19 -

4.05 Emergency Procedures Emergency procedures, developed in accordance with the recommendations of the behavioral consultant, may be used as necessary in emergency circumstances.
4.06 Medications A. Medication shall not be used as punishment, for the convenience of staff, as a substitute for programming or in quantities that interfere with a class member's daily living activities. B. No prescription medication shall be administered except upon written order of the treating physician. Medication shall be administered only by trained persons or the class member as part of a plan to teach him/her self-medication. C. Medications used for the management of behavior must be used only as an integral part of the class member's Individual Program Plan that is directed specifically towards the reduction of and eventual elimination of the behaviors for which the medications are utilized. D. Medications utilized for control of inappropriate behavior shall not be used unless it is justified that the harmful effects of the behavior clearly outweigh the potentially detrimental effects of the medications and medication use is combined with a positive intervention component of the Individual Program Plan.
- 20 -

E. Medications used for the management of behavior shall be closely monitored, in conjunction with the physician and the drug regimen review requirements, for desired responses and adverse consequences. Unless clinical evidence justifies that this is contraindicated, such medications shall be gradually withdrawn at least annually in a carefully monitored program conducted in conjunction with the Individual Program Plan.
F. When behavior modifying medications are prescribed as part of the class member's Individual Program Plan, the plan must state and the class member and his/her designated representative must be advised of and consent to the following: the symptoms or behaviors which the medication is prescribed to relieve; alternative therapies; the risk of non-treatment; and precautions, contraindications, and potential adverse effects of the medication.
G. No physically intrusive, chemical or bio-medical research or experimentation shall be performed upon any class member without the informed consent of the class member or his/her designated representative. This does not preclude the use of alternative treatment plans, if medically indicated and with the required informed consent.
Section 5 Entry into the Community Service System 5.01 Notice Defendants shall inform class members and their
representative of class member's eligibility to receive available - 21 -

community based services and supports. Notice shall be provided to individual class members and to community and governmental entities known to serve class members. Class members and their representative who initially decline the services shall be informed that they may apply for available services or supports at any subsequent time.
5.02 Application for Services Class members may apply for community services on their own or with the assistance of a State Hospital-School case manager, referring agency, legal guardian, family member, advocate or their designated representative.
5.03 Referral to Case Manager Within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this Decree, each class member shall be assigned a person on the state hospital-school's staff to serve as the class member's institutional case manager. Class members applying for community services as provided in section 5.02, will be promptly referred to the appropriate local case management agency. The referral will request the case management agency to work with the institutional case manager to coordinate placement planning for the class member. Thirty (30) days before the expected placement date, the community case management agency will be asked to assign a community case manager who will assume continued responsibility for development and implementation of the class
- 22 -

member's IPP. The Defendants will facilitate the referral process and shall support the case manager in carrying out his/her responsibilities.
5-04 Advocacy and Self-Empowerment Class members shall be provided information regarding advocacy and self-empowerment.
5.05 Assessment Defendants shall assure that each class member has a comprehensive assessment of the class member's strengths, needs, and desires. The comprehensive assessment shall be conducted pursuant to an established methodology that is consistent with accepted professional standards. The comprehensive assessment shall assess, minimally, the following areas: the class member's mental health status and history; social setting, health, including medical, dental and mental health? daily living skills; criminal justice history; vocational and employment history; education and training; preferred language and mode of communication; legal status; intellectual assessment; functional behavioral assessment; and resource availability. The assessment shall be conducted by appropriately credentialed professionals, with the class member's participation and consent or that of his/her designated representative.
- 23 -

5-06 Needs-Based Nature of Assessment The comprehensive assessment shall identify the community support needs and preferences of the class member and his/her representative and shall not be based on the availability of community based services. It shall form the basis for the class member's Individual Program Plan which must consider availability of community based services.
5.07 Assessment Report A written report detailing the results of the comprehensive assessment shall be prepared and provided to the class member, the class member's parents if the class member is a minor, the legal guardian of a class member or any other person designated by the class member.
5-08 Referral to Community Defendants shall refer class members to appropriate and available community programs, the Home and Community Based waiver, and any other waivers that may be in place, for purposes of out placement and shall cooperate with, and facilitate out placement.
5.09 SHS Admission Pre-Approval Procedure for Sub-Class Members:
A. Each subclass member or his or her designated representative requesting admission to a State Hospital-School
- 24 -

shall go through an application process designed to redirect admission to a community service whenever possible and appropriate, and to insure that admission will not occur except as a last resort and when no other appropriate community services are available.
B. The initial step shall require local Department of Human Services staff to review the application to assure that all reasonable efforts have been taken to maintain community placement. The Department will organize a system of regional screeners who will be responsible to assure that applicants seek available community alternatives prior to passing the application on to the Division. These screeners will work with social workers and case managers to seek alternative services and seek available county funding to maintain consumers in the community. Only after such alternatives have been explored, other appropriate alternatives have been determined not available, will applications for SHS admission be forwarded to the Division for consideration.
C. Applications, after screening at the local level, will be reviewed by the Division to determine whether or not all possible and appropriate community based services have been considered. The Division shall maintain a response team which reviews admission requests and attempts to identify possible appropriate alternatives, including offering consultative services by SHS staff to assist in adapting existing community options and to assist in attempting to create appropriate
- 25 -

alternatives to SHS placement. SHS consultation will be made available to a variety of agencies, including schools, residences, foster families, biological families, and providers of residential, social, medical, and vocational services. The response team shall be staffed by representatives from the Division, the Office of Field Operations, Medical Services and staff from each SHS.
D. Admission will not be approved until the response team has assured itself that all possible community options have been exhausted and that an appropriate bed is available at a State Hospital-School. The only exceptions to this policy will be for those cases where, at the time of placement, the State HospitalSchool has given the placement facility, class member, and/or family a return placement guarantee or where the Division determines that the subclass member's health or safety is in immediate jeopardy. Whenever there are indications that the guaranteed return placement may be failing, the State HospitalSchool shall offer the same consultation and support that would be offered for any request for admission to try and maintain the placement. For the life of the return placement guarantee and once it is determined that the placement has failed and no other appropriate community placement is available, the subclass member may be returned without going through the local screening and the Division's response team.
E. Timely notice will be provided to Plaintiffs' counsel of any application received by the Division for admission of a
- 26 -

subclass member to a state hospital-school and of all admissions to inpatient status. Notice shall include the date of application and a summary of actions taken by the Division's response team and the state hospital-school.
Section 6 Individual Program Plans 6.01 General Guidelines A. Each class member shall have an Individual Program Plan
(IPP). The IPP shall define class member placement, programming, and any other necessary supports to be provided. The IPP shall also include the needs assessment for community supports pursuant to section 5.06 of this Decree and shall be separately identifiable.
B. The development, implementation, and monitoring oC the Individual Program Plan shall be coordinated by the case manager. The ratio of case managers to class members shall be sufficient to ensure that the terms of this Decree are implemented for all class members.
C. For class members from birth through age twenty one (21), Defendants shall cooperate with the appropriate education system in the development of an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) developed pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C sections 1400, et seq. (1988 & Supp. I-1 1990), as amended. The class member's IEP shall be incorporated into the more comprehensive IPP.
- 27 -

D. Following the comprehensive assessment, the State Hospital-School case manager shall convene and conduct a conference centered on the class member. The purpose of the conference shall be to assist the class member and his/her designated representative in establishing goals and objectives that will promote the best interests of the class member and lead to maximum independence and self-sufficiency. The case manager shall perform his/her duties and the conference shall be conducted in accordance with standards of performance developed by the Defendants in consultation with counsel for the Plaintiffs.
6.02 IPP Appeal Notwithstanding any other remedies available under law, class members or their designated representatives, acting on their behalf, may appeal the contents of the IPP to the state hospital-school's Human and Legal Rights Committee. If the Human and Legal Rights Committee is not able to satisfactorily resolve the dispute then the class member, or his/her designated representative, may file an appeal under the Department's appeal procedure contained within the Administrative Code, as provided in Section 7.01 of this Decree.
- 28 -

Section 7 Appeal Procedures 7.01 General Provisions A. Notwithstanding any other remedies available under law,
class members or their designated representatives, acting on their behalf, may file an appeal under the Department's appeal procedure found at 441 IAC 7, whenever the class member believes the Department has inappropriately denied a service, suspended a service, discontinued a service, or the class member's choice of program has not been followed.
B. The case manager shall inform the class member and his/her designated representative of the right to appeal those Department actions spelled out in Section 7.01A.
7.02 Reporting Defendants shall send copies of all appeals filed by or on behalf of class members to Plaintiffs' counsel on a monthly basis .
7.03 Human Rights Committees Defendants shall maintain and utilize human rights committees at the hospital-schools in full compliance with state and federal laws.
- 29 -

C. REFOCUSING THE SERVICE DELIVERY SYSTEM Section 8 Education and Training
8.01 Training Consortium A. Defendants shall provide copies of this Decree to all planning councils, advocacy groups and providers. B. Within ninety (90) days of the effective date of this Decree, Plaintiffs and Defendants shall jointly discuss with the Iowa University Affiliated Programs and other knowledgeable sources, the potential for an Iowa Training Consortium for Persons Supporting Iowans with Disabilities, and the potential for developing a training program to further the implementation of this Decree. Members of the Consortium may include individuals with disabilities or special health care needs and their representatives, a representative of the Iowa Association of Rehabilitation and Residential Facilities, a community support coordinator, community-based service providers, advocates, case management agencies, and educators. Plaintiffs believe that IUAP is the most qualified entity to coordinate the training consortium and that it falls within the sole source exception. Defendants will examine the sole source exception once the request for proposal (RFP) is drafted. C. The training curricula to be discussed shall represent a continuum of competency-based experiences appropriate for:
1. Students in community colleges seeking degrees in human service work, including supports coordination;
- 30 -

2. Persons currently employed or desiring to be employed as direct care providers;
3. Persons currently employed or desiring to be employed as direct care workers in the two State Hospital Schools; and
4. Nurses, physicians (including psychiatrists), nurse clinicians, dentists, physician assistants, physical therapists, occupational therapists, speech-language pathologists, audiologists, nutritionists, and recreational therapists who are employed or desire to be employed in positions supporting persons with developmental disabilities in community-based or State Hospital-School settings. D. Once developed, the curricular materials shall be made available to: a) existing community colleges; b) Regents' University faculty and staff, to expand existing and develop new course offerings, and c) regional community based trainers certified by the IUAP, using the "trainer of the trainer models", and 3) personnel of existing county cluster centered service providers.
8.02 Funding Implementation of subsection 8.01 is contingent upon the availability of funding.
- 31 -

Section 9 Five Year Plan for Community Supports and Services 9-01 Principles The Five Year Plan developed pursuant to Section 9.03 of
this Decree will be based on the following principles: 1. Community support services must be based on
individual class members' needs. 2. Services must be available and accessible to class
members. 3. Federal funding sources must be maximized. 4. All funding resources must be directed in the most
effective manner to meet class members' needs.
9.02 Policy Statement The parties recognize that by statute the primary authority for funding services for class members in Iowa currently rests with county government. Implementation of any plan which either changes the current funding mechanism or requires the counties to implement specific services as a part of a restructuring of the current service delivery system will require legislative approval. This paragraph shall not be interpreted to be inconsistent with 9.03.
9.03 Development Of Five-Year Plan A. The Department of Human Services shall develop a FiveYear Plan, the purpose of which is to identify and provide for the development of appropriate community supports and services
- 32 -

needed for community placement of class members. The plan shall include strategies that effectuate its goals and objectives. Those strategies that Defendants have authority to implement within current resources and responsibilities shall begin implementation in FY 1995. Those strategies requiring legislative action shall be recommended to the legislature by January 1, 1995, and thereafter, as appropriate. Defendants shall implement those strategies adopted by the legislature.
B. During the development of the Five-Year Plan, Defendants shall in good faith solicit and consider suggestions from Plaintiffs' counsel on a regular and ongoing basis. During the development of- the Five-Year Plan, Defendants may also solicit appropriate input from affected persons or bodies, such as but not limited to representatives of: counties; class members or their designated representatives; regional planning councils; MH/MR Commission; providers; advocacy groups; and State HospitalSchool staff. A copy of the Five-Year Plan shall be provided to the parties' counsel.
C. The Defendants shall, in consultation with Defendants' counsel and the other parties involved in development of the plan, annually review the plan. Defendants will notify Plaintiffs' and Intervenors' counsel of any subsequent changes or recommended changes to the plan.
D. Defendants shall recommend that any state savings resulting from the Five-Year Plan be directed to community services for class members.
- 33 -

9.04 Consultants Within sixty (60) days of the effective date of this Decree, Defendants shall contract with consultant(s) for a minimum of twenty (20) days to provide technical assistance for the development of the Five-Year Plan, including but not limited to funding recommendations and implementation strategies. The consultant shall provide training and technical assistance to the Department, community agencies, and providers in locating funding sources, and identify techniques for writing and obtaining grants for community based services. Plaintiffs' counsel may recommend potential consultants to the Defendants. In selecting the consultant, Defendants shall select four (4) possible consultants. Defendants will provide the names and background information to Plaintiffs' counsel for review and their recommendation thirty (30) calendar days prior to the proposed hire date.
Section 10 Iowa's State Hospital-Schools 10.01 General Principles Governing the State Hospital-
Schools A. The Defendants shall maintain the hospital schools in
full compliance with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, as amended, imposed on ICFs/MR. Certification of such compliance will be maintained.
- 34 -

B. Out-placement Guidelines 1. There shall be no exit criteria which a class
member must meet in order to be placed in the community. The primary criterion in determining whether a class member should be placed in the community shall be the availability of appropriate services to meet his/her documented needs. Any class member for whom sufficient supports can be appropriately arranged and provided in the community shall be eligible for placement, regardless of developmental status or type or extent of developmental disabilities.
2. No class member shall be discharged from either institution simply to meet a perceived schedule unless appropriate community supports are in place.
3. Preferably, class members should be returned to their home communities. In those instances in which family or the class member choose not to associate, "home community" shall be defined according to other close emotional ties or supports the class member may have.
4. The following class members will be given priority by the state hospital-schools in placement in the community:
a. Those who .request or whose parent (of minor children), legal guardian, or designated representative request community placement; and
b. Persons who are twenty one (21) years of age or younger.
- 35 -

5. During each year of the implementation of this Decree, class members with varying types and degrees of disability shall be placed into the community to insure the comprehensive development of a nondiscriminatory communitybased system.
6. Defendants shall make every effort to ensure that placement into the community is successful. These efforts include but are not limited to:
a. Client-centered planning; b. Careful and detailed transition planning; c. Pre-placement visits and overnights; d. Follow up by hospital-school staff; and e. Provision of re-admission prevention consultation
for class members placed into the community. 7. Defendants will make best efforts to place class members in available smaller housing and residential settings, such as apartments and single family dwellings, but with the approval of the class member or the parent if a class member is a minor, other facilities appropriate to the person's needs will be used. 8. Any parent of a minor, or designated representative of a class member shall retain the right to actively participate in the outplacement decision. This Decree shall not be interpreted to diminish the rights or obligations currently accorded the parties, and/or the class members' representatives by law.
- 36 -

D. IMPLEMENTATION Section 11 Class Notice
11.01 Notice of Consent Decree Within fifteen (15) working days of the effective date of this Decree, Plaintiffs shall prepare a Notice of Consent Decree in Class Action Lawsuit subject to Court approval. Defendants shall ensure that within forty-five (45) days of Court approval, the Notice is posted in plain view in both hospital-schools, and sent to all identified class members and their designated representatives, and subclass members, for whom Defendants have a last known addess, and their designated representatives. Defendants shall send a copy of the Notice to consumer organizations, advocacy groups, community providers, and other interested parties that request a copy. Distribution of the Notice of Consent Decree remains the ongoing obligation of Defendants throughout the life of the Decree.
Section 12 Funding 12.01 System Development Defendants recognize their obligation under this Decree to
facilitate the development of a continuum of care and choices and a unified and cohesive system of community based services for class members.
- 37 -

12.02 Budget Request A. Each year that this Decree is in effect, and taking into account the economic circumstances of the state, the Director shall include in the annual DHS budget request to the Governor those funds which are necessary to implement this Decree in accord with its terms. The amount of the request shall be sufficient to maintain and enhance community based services for class members and to implement any plan adopted by the legislature as provided in section 9. The Director shall be responsible for assuring that the State MH/MR/DD plan incorporates the Five-Year Plan For Community Supports and Services. The state MH/MR/DD plan will be made available to the Governor, the legislature and Plaintiffs' and Intervenors' counsel. B. Defendants shall support the Director's budget to achieve the initiatives set forth in this Decree. C. A copy of all portions of the Governor's budget applicable to this Decree shall be sent to counsel for Plaintiffs and Intervenors when the budget is sent to the legislature, and a copy of the final budget approved by the legislature shall be sent to counsel for Plaintiffs and Intervenors immediately following approval of the budget. This applies to any supplemental budget requests as well.
- 38 -

12.03 Funding Initiatives A. Defendants shall use their best efforts to maximize the amount of federal and other sources of funding available for the development of community based services for class members. This may include, but is not limited to, the identification and dedication of specific staff to serve as a funding assistance resource center for community based agencies and providers, which may assist them to educate, seek, or assist in the application for federal or in-kind or other private contributions to fulfill any federal matching requirements. B. Defendants shall use their best efforts to ensure that community based services are funded to the maximum extent feasible by Title XIX/Medicaid, particularly through the Home and Community Based Waiver and other government programs determined to be cost efficient, including but not limited to Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT), and family preservation alternatives to foster care.
Section 13 Legislation 13.01 Changes Identified Defendants shall identify any steps in the process of
developing community-based services which could be streamlined, improved, or eliminated and shall report that information to the legislature and, in writing, to counsel for Plaintiffs and Intervenors. Defendants shall make their best efforts to effectuate legislative or regulatory changes and elicit
- 39 -

cooperation from other state entities in order to accelerate the development of community based services for class members as described herein.
13.02 Personal Assistance and Family Support Pursuant to the passage of the state legislation creating a personal assistance services program for persons with disabilities and a comprehensive family support program of families of persons with disabilities, H.F. 2302, 75th General Assembly, amending Iowa Code section 225C.46 -- .48, Defendants shall in good faith solicit and forward to the Personal Assistance and Family Support council created by the legislation, suggestions from Plaintiffs' counsel regarding implementation, improvements, and amendments to this legislation. Issues to address will include but not be limited to age limitations of the current legislation, consumer representation, and model grants.
Section 14 Planning, Monitoring, and Dispute Resolution 14.01 Enforcement The parties agree that the terms of this Decree may be
specifically enforced directly by the Court upon written motion of the parties, with notice to opposing counsel. The parties shall make reasonable attempts to informally resolve all disputes prior to their application to the court.
- 40 -

14.02 Meetings Between the Parties In addition to any other provision in this Decree, the parties and counsel shall meet to exchange information regarding the status of compliance, and to facilitate communication and problem solving. Any consultants hired by the parties may participate in these meetings if requested by the parties to do so. The meetings shall be held at least quarterly, and more often as necessary or requested by the parties or the Court. If any of the consultants provided for in this Decree are asked to participate, any day of participation shall be considered within the total number of days of the consultant's contract. The meetings shall be held alternately in offices of counsel for the parties.
14.03 Access of Counsel for Plaintiffs A. Plaintiffs' counsel and consultants, experts, representatives, and assignees shall, as representatives of the Plaintiff class, continue to have access to: 1) class members; 2) records of class members; and 3) all other data, information, documents, and similar materials relevant to counsel's representation of the class. Defendants shall respond to all reasonable requests from Plaintiffs' counsel within twenty (20) business days. Plaintiffs' counsel shall maintain confidentiality. B. All state hospital-school staff shall be directed, permitted, and required to answer all questions of counsel for
- 41 -

Plaintiffs and requests for information freely, promptly, and truthfully without fear of any retribution or disciplinary action. Defendants reserve the right to take appropriate disciplinary action if an employee violates any laws of the state, program policies or work rules. This paragraph does not supersede or erode any rights given to employees of the State Hospital-Schools covered by a collective bargaining agreement.
C. To the extent allowed by law, Plaintiffs' counsel shall be informed about decisions regarding class member transfers and placements in the following manner: as soon as possible, but in emergencies no later than five (5) days after a class member's transfer or placement. Defendants shall insure that Plaintiffs' counsel receive a copy of the class member's transition plan; the name, address, and telephone number of the class member's case management agency; and the name, address and telephone number of the residence or facility to which the class member is being transferred or placed.
D. In addition to any other requirements herein, Defendants shall provide Plaintiffs' counsel the following in a timely and ongoing manner: notification of class deaths, including any and all reports that result; Monthly Report of Medical Services Under Title XIX of the Social Security Act (Series B-l); Population Movement Report (Series D-l); and the Iowa Council on Human Services Budget Recommendations.
- 42 -

14.04 Modification of Decree This Decree may be modified only upon written agreement of the parties and Order of the Court issued thereon; upon motion by a party and Order of the Court issued thereon; or by the Court's own motion.
Section 15 Attorneys' Fees 15.01 Plaintiffs' Cost and Fees Plaintiffs' counsel reserve the right to seek an appropriate
award of costs and disbursements including attorneys' fees, and Defendants reserve the right to oppose such a request.
15.02 Costs of Enforcement Notwithstanding any other provision of this Decree, Plaintiffs may seek attorneys' fees and costs for the costs of enforcement of this Decree should Plaintiffs prevail in any motion they file alleging non-compliance with the Court's order, or this Decree. The parties agree that Plaintiffs do not waive the right to such fees.
- 43 -

CJ
CHARLES PALMER, Director Iowa Department of Human Services GORDON E. ALLEN Deputy Attorney General Hotrtfer State Office Building Des Moines, Iowa 50319 Telephone 515/281-5166 FAX 515/281-4209 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS
- 44 -

(2 •
SONDRA B. KASKA
LINDA M. LEVEY
KARI L. HAMEL Student Legal Intern Iowa Protection and Advocacy-
Services, Inc. P.O. Box 2146 Iowa City, Iowa 52244-2146 Telephone: 319/358-6690
RICHARD A. PUNDT 330 First Street, S.E. Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52401 Telephone: 319/363-8800 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Tin tiy»<lwr»»7 c»rtifit<tiat» tnit ca?T •< It* fartfrinf

i n t r — i ( m t*rrW t*m ttdk *4 Ifct itnnwyt t< twuri *t

•I tmtmi u Ita +*n-tmtit*4 m m kr iwcWiin Hm M •

•n fitbm U^nfi tt *t)i *•<> invntr M lu fi«f«etw«

n txktti kr th« 7*«tfnfi «l nciri Iwna. wirt

• • IWtW

S)««* Pnt Offct

• * » * Citf. txn • Ha

BETTY BU^TENWERF Legal Counsel AFSCME/Iowa Council 61 4320 N.W. Second Avenue Des Moines, Iowa 50313
COUNSEL FOR INTERVENORS
- 45 -

 </s> Conner v. Branstad

MR-IA-001-004

L S M J ' ; ! -_Z,

^ DEC - 7 Pil

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

CENTRAL DIVISION

EVERT CONNER, et al., Plaintiff,
vs.
TERRY BRANSTAD, et al., Defendants,
and RUSS and SYBIL FINKEN, et al.,
Intervenors.

NO. 4-86-CV-90871
ORDER APPROVING CONSENT DECREE

On July 15, 1994, the parties filed a comprehensive, forty-five page consent decree in an attempt to resolve this eight year old class action litigation. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)1, on August 31, 1994, this court entered an Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Consent Decree. That order was subsequently modified on September 9, 1994. Those orders provided that the Defendants both post a
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) states:
(e) Dismissal or Compromise. A class action shall not be dismissed or compromised without the approval of the court, and notice of the proposed dismissal or compromise shall be given to all members of the class in such manner as the court directs.

notice to all members of the class and provide individual notice to all class members by mailing or delivering to the individual class members and their guardians a copy of the notice of proposed settlement referred to in the court's August 31st and September 9th orders. This notice was to be made on or before September 21, 1994. Within two weeks of the signing of the Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Consent Decree, Defendants were required to identify subclass members residing in the community and provide written notice to them at their last known address, in the form approved by the court.
This matter came on for hearing on November 14, 1994 for the purpose of determining whether the court would grant final approval for the consent decree. Appearing for the Plaintiffs were Sondra B. Kaska and Linda M. Levey of Iowa Protection and Advocacy Services, Inc., Iowa City, Iowa. Appearing for Defendants was Deputy Attorney General Gordon E. Allen, Des Moines, Iowa. Counsel for Intervenors was Michael Hansen, General Counsel for AFSCME, Des Moines, Iowa. Having reviewed the proposed Consent Decree and the accompanying documents, having heard the arguments of counsel for the parties, and having reviewed the post-hearing submissions concerning this final order, the court concludes the following:
1. The court is satisfied that the requisite notices were provided by the Defendants within the time frame set forth in the court's prior orders. Forty-five (45) days were allowed for class and subclass members to express their views regarding the proposed Consent Decree and the court has reviewed all written correspondence addressing this issue received by class members, subclass members or their guardians, friends or relatives. This written correspondence has also been made available sufficiently in advance of the hearing to all counsel of record.
2. The court finds that the Consent Decree is a fundamentally fair, adequate and reasonable resolution of this litigation and it is consistent with the public interest.

See, e.g., Angela R. by Hesselbein v. Clinton, 999 F.2d 320, 324 (8th Cir. 1993) ("Before approving a class action settlement and entering the requested consent decree, then, a federal court must determine 'that the settlement is consistent with the statute the consent judgment is to enforce and fairly and reasonably resolves the controversy in a manner consistent with the public interest,'" quoting Citizens for a Better Environment v. Gorsuch, 718 F.2d 1117, 1128 (D.C. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 467 U.S. 1219 (1984)); United States v. City of Chicago, 978 F.2d 325, 333 (7th Cir. 1992) ("A class action lawsuit cannot be dismissed by a consent decree or other settlement 'without court approval.' Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). This requirement implies that a court may not approve a consent decree without determining that it meets basic standards of fairness."); United Black Firefighters Ass'n v. City of Akron, 976 F.2d 999, 1004 (6th Cir. 1992) (when approving a class action consent decree pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), "[t]he district court may not approve the consent decree unless it is fair and reasonable to those it affects and is consistent with the public interest," citing Williams v. Vukovich, 720 F.2d 909, 921 (6th Cir. 1983)); United States v. Akzo Coatings Of Am., Inc., 949 F.2d 1409, 1435 (6th Cir. 1991) (finding that approval of consent decree in CERCLA litigation required determination of whether decree is "fair, reasonable and adequate," and stating these factors for considering whether the decree is "fair": "the strength of the plaintiff's case, the good faith efforts of the negotiators, the opinions of counsel, and the possible risks involved in the litigation if the settlement is not approved," quoting United States v. Hooker Chemical & Plastics Co., 607 F. Supp. 1052, 1057 (W.D.N.Y. 1985)); United States v. Cannons Engineering Corp., 899 F.2d 79, 84 (1st Cir. 1990) (In assessing settlement of CERCLA litigation, "[t]he relevant standard, after all, is not whether the settlement is one which the court itself might have fashioned, or considers ideal, but whether the proposed decree is fair, reasonable, and faithful to the objectives of the governing statute," citing Durrett v. Housing Auth., 896 F.2d 600, 603-04 (1st Cir.

1990)); Durrett, 896 F.2d at 603-04 (settlement of class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b)); Davis v. City and County of San Francisco, 890 F.2d 1438, 1444 (9th Cir. 1989) ("The district court reviews a decree [under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)] under a 'universally applied standard' to determine whether the settlement is 'fundamentally fair, adequate and reasonable,'" quoting Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm'n of the City and County of San Francisco, 688 F.2d 615, 625 (9th Cir. 1982), cert, denied, 459 U.S. 1217 (1983)).
3. The terms of the Consent Decree, incorporated herein, impose upon Defendants a number of ongoing responsibilities intended to rectify the problems on which the claims are based. The signing of this Decree by the parties ends the first phase of the litigation and marks the beginning of the second phase, implementation. The second phase, during which the parties implement the terms to which they have agreed, is critical to the successful outcome of the case.
4. The language of the Consent Decree anticipates ongoing supervision and involvement by this court. See, e.g., § 14.01 (terms may be directly enforced by the court; § 14.02 (meetings between the parties may be held more often at the request of the court); § 14.04 (modifications by motion of the parties and order of the court or on court's own motion); and § 15.02 (fees available for enforcement).
5. Due to the systemic reform nature of this litigation, this court shall maintain jurisdiction for purposes that include but are not limited to, supervising the implementation of the consent decree, enforcing compliance with its terms, and modifying the terms as necessary.
A consent decree serves a dual function. It is an agreement between the parties reached through mutual consent, and so has the attributes of a contract. It also serves as res judicata, barring either party from bringing a separate lawsuit, and so has the attributes of a judgment. Because of its hybrid nature,

a consent decree can be labelled as either a judgment or a contract depending upon the purpose for which it is being reviewed. Phoenix Resources, Inc. v. Duncan Township, 155 F.R.D. 507, 509 (M.D. Pa. 1994). Because of the unique nature of consent decrees, the Eighth Circuit has pointed out that "[o]rdinarily, a district court retains the inherent authority to modify or enforce a consent decree." Picon v. Morris, 933 F.2d 660, 662 (8th Cir. 1991)(citing Spallone v. United States, 493 U.S. 265 (1990) and McDonald v. Armontrout, 908 F.2d 388, 390 (8th Cir. 1990)); see Beckett v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, 995 F.2d 280, 285 (D.C. Cir. 1993)("well-established principle that a trial court retains jurisdiction to enforce consent decrees..."); In re Pearson, 990 F.2d 653, 658 (1st Cir. 1993) ("A consent decree is not simply a contract entered into between private parties seeking to effectuate parochial concerns.... The court stands behind the decree, ready to interpret and enforce its provisions") (citations omitted); Hook v. State of Arizona, Dep't of Corrections, 972 F.2d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir. 1992)("A district court retains jurisdiction to enforce its judgments, including consent decrees."); Newman v. Graddick, 740 F.2d 1513, 1520 (11th Cir. 1984)("These [consent] decrees are judicial acts over which the court has continuing jurisdiction."); Stotts v. Memphis Fire Dep't, 679 F.2d 541, 557 (6th Cir. 1983), rev'd on other grounds, Firefighters Lovan Union No. 1784 v. Stotts, 467 U.S. 561 (1984)(" A trial court has continuing jurisdiction to modify a decree should its operation become unreasonable."); Aro Corp. v. Allied Witan Co., 531 F.2d 1368, 1371 (6th Cir.), cert, denied, 429 U.S. 862 (1976)("It is well established that courts retain the inherent power to enforce agreements entered into in settlement of litigation pending before them."); see also City of Las Vegas, Nev. v. Clark County, Nev., 755 F.2d 697, 701 (9th Cir. 1985); United States v. Georgia Power Co., 634 F.2d 929, 932 (5th Cir. 1981). The court's retention of jurisdiction remains true even where the decree is silent as to continuing

jurisdiction. Picon, 933 F.2d at 662. This litigation is dismissed. However, the court shall maintain continuing
jurisdiction to enforce, modify and interpret the provisions of the Consent Decree in the event it becomes necessary.
IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 2nd day of December, 1994.
MARK W. BENNETT U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

 </s> 839 F.Supp. 1346 (1993)
Evert CONNER, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Terry BRANSTAD, et al., Defendants.
No. 4-86-CV-30871.
United States District Court, S.D. Iowa, C.D.
December 9, 1993.
13478 *1347 *1348 Sondra B. Kaska, Iowa City, IA, and Richard A. Pundt, Cedar Rapids, IA, for plaintiffs.
Gordon E. Allen, Asst. Atty. Gen. for the State of Iowa.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
BENNETT, United States Magistrate Judge.
This is a class action lawsuit in which Plaintiffs' class, a group of institutionalized mentally and physically disabled individuals, challenges the State of Iowa's system for providing services to individuals with mental and physical disabilities as violating federal statutory and constitutional principles. Specifically, this litigation arises from Defendants' continued providing of services to Plaintiffs' class in an institutional setting rather than in a community based environment advocated by Plaintiffs.[1]
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Defendants have moved for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(b). Defendants' motion raises thorny legal questions regarding discernment of the living environment and habilitation to which Plaintiffs are entitled under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and a multiple of federal civil rights statutes. A hearing on Defendants' motion was held on October 7, 1993. Plaintiffs were represented at the hearing by Sondra B. Kaska of Iowa City, Iowa and Richard A. Pundt of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and Defendants were represented by Gordon E. Allen, Assistant Attorney General for the State of Iowa. On December 3, 1993, Plaintiffs filed their Supplemental Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Resistance to Motion for Summary Judgment. On December 6, 1993, Defendants filed their Reply to Supplemental Brief of Plaintiffs. The matter is now fully submitted.
This case recently had its seventh anniversary; Plaintiffs having filed their initial complaint in this litigation on December 8, 1986.[2] Some of the history of this lengthy litigation bears being set out. On September 8, 1987, Judge Vietor conditionally certified a class to consist of "all persons who are or who may become residents of Glenwood or Woodward State Hospital-Schools and who could be appropriately placed in community-based living environments but who remain institutionalized." On July 8, 1988, this case was placed on Judge Vietor's trial calendar for November 14, 1988. Almost immediately, Plaintiffs moved to continue the trial date. On September 12, 1988, Judge Vietor granted the first of five trial continuances in this matter. On December 7, 1988, the case was transferred to the docket of Judge Stuart. On April 2, 1993, the parties consented to proceed before the undersigned. On May 27, 1993, the court set this matter for trial commencing on February 8, 1994.
Despite the age of this case, the parties have engaged in several recent exercises in legal jousting. On November 4, 1993, the court denied Defendant's Motion for Joinder of Parties in which Defendants sought to join all 99 Iowa counties as a class defendant in this case. On the same date, the court also rejected Defendants' attempt to decertify Plaintiffs' class. On November 17, 1993, the court denied Defendants' latest motion for a

continuance of the trial. Also on November 17, 1993, the court granted an eleventh hour motion to intervene by 1349 parents and guardians of Woodward and Glenwood residents, *1349 and the bargaining unit employees at those
institutions.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
A. Undisputed Facts.
For the purposes of the summary judgement motion only, the court finds the following facts:
1. Plaintiffs' class consists of all individuals who are or may become residents of Glenwood and Woodward State Hospital Schools and who could be placed in community based residential facilities but who remain at Glenwood and Woodward.[3]
2. Residents of Glenwood and Woodward are persons with disabilities, as that term is defined under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
3. An undisclosed number of Glenwood and Woodward residents are children, ages birth through 21, who are covered under the IDEA.
4. Glenwood and Woodward are both owned and operated by the State of Iowa. Both facilities have been certified as Intermediate Care Facilities for the Mentally Retarded ("ICF/MR's") pursuant to Title XIX, 42 U.S.C. § 1396d.
5. Glenwood and Woodward had a combined population of 822 residents as of July 1, 1993.
6. Approximately 98 to 99 percent of Glenwood and Woodward residents qualify for Medicaid.
7. Federal funds provide approximately 66 percent of the cost of care and services for residents at Glenwood and Woodward. Pursuant to Iowa law, the counties of legal settlement of Glenwood residents are billed for 80 percent of the non-federal share of their residents' costs. The counties of legal settlement of Woodward are billed for 84 percent of the non-federal costs. For non-medicaid eligible residents, the counties are billed for 80 percent of the cost of care.
8. Community based facilities for mentally retarded individuals are operated by private entities. There are 72 providers certified as ICF/MR's in Iowa.
9. Defendant Charles M. Palmer is the director of the Department of Human Services ("DHS") for the State of Iowa.
10. DHS is responsible for providing services and programs for the mentally retarded and developmentally disabled.
11. Defendant Terry Branstad is the Governor of the State of Iowa. Defendant Branstad, in his capacity as Iowa's Governor, is responsible for ensuring that the laws are faithfully executed in the State of Iowa.
12. Defendant William E. Campbell is the Superintendent of Glenwood.
13. Defendant Michael Davis is the Superintendent of Woodward.
B. Disputed Facts
1. Are the Plaintiff residents of Glenwood and Woodward who are covered under IDEA being provided with an appropriate public education tailored to meet the unique needs of each resident pursuant to each resident's individual assessments.

2. Are Plaintiffs "otherwise qualified" for placement in community based ICF/MR's?
3. Are Plaintiffs being excluded from these programs solely by reason of the severity and multiplicity of their handicaps and whether Defendants could have made reasonable accommodations for Plaintiffs' handicaps.
4. Do the conditions and habilitative services provided to residents of Glenwood and Woodward substantially meet professionally accepted minimum standards for care and habilitation?
5. Are the minimum standards of care and habilitation established by Title XIX being met in Woodward and Glenwood?
1350 *1350 III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment presents the court with a host of issues all related to Plaintiffs' continued residence and receipt of habilitation services at Glenwood and Woodward. Following an overview of the standards for considering a motion for summary judgment, the court will first consider the issue of whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that Plaintiffs receive habilitation services in the least restrictive setting consistent with qualified professional judgment. Next, the court must consider whether Plaintiffs have received minimally adequate habilitation consistent with qualified professional judgment. Third, the court will address Plaintiffs' claim that they are entitled by procedural due process to periodic hearings. Following that discussion, the court will then turn its attention to the issue of whether Plaintiffs may enforce the Medicaid provisions of Title XIX through a lawsuit brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Fifth, the court will discuss the validity of Plaintiffs' claims brought pursuant to section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Finally, the court will consider Plaintiffs' claims under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
A. Standards for Summary Judgment.
The standard for granting summary judgment is firmly established. Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that summary judgment is proper only if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgement as a matter of law." Wabun-Inini v. Sessions, 900 F.2d 1234, 1238 (8th Cir.1990) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)); Woodsmith Publishing Co. v. Meredith Corp., 904 F.2d 1244, 1247 (8th Cir.1990).[4] A court considering a motion for summary judgment must view all the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, here the named Plaintiff and class members, and give these Plaintiffs the benefit of all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the facts. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) (quoting United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655, 82 S.Ct. 993, 994, 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962)); Burk v. Beene, 948 F.2d 489, 492 (8th Cir.1991).
The Eighth Circuit recognizes "that summary judgment is a drastic remedy and must be exercised with extreme care to prevent taking genuine issues of fact away from juries." Wabun-Inini, 900 F.2d at 1238. The Eighth Circuit, however, also follows the principle that "summary judgment procedure is properly regarded not as a disfavored procedural shortcut, but rather as an integral part of the Federal Rules as a whole, which are designed `to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.'" Id. (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 327, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2555, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)); Hartnagel v. Norman, 953 F.2d 394, 396 (8th Cir.1992).
Procedurally, the moving party bears "the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the record which show lack of a genuine issue." Hartnagel, 953 F.2d at 395 (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. at 2553). The moving party is not required by Rule 56 to support its motion with affidavits or other similar materials negating the opponent's claim. Id.
"When a moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56(c), its opponent must do more than simply show there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586, 106 S.Ct. at 1356. A

nonmoving party is required under Rule 56(e) to go beyond the pleadings, and by affidavits, or by the 1351 "depositions, answers *1351 to interrogatories, and admissions on file," designate "specific facts showing that
there is a genuine issue for trial." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. at 2553. The necessary proof that the nonmoving party must produce is not precisely measurable, but it must be "enough evidence so that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmovant." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 257, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2514, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).
In Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249, 106 S.Ct. at 2510-11, Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323-24, 106 S.Ct. at 2552-53, and Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586-87, the Supreme Court established that a summary judgment motion should be interpreted by the trial court to accomplish its purpose of disposing of factually unsupported claims, and the trial judge's function is not to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter, but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. Johnson v. Enron Corp., 906 F.2d 1234, 1237 (8th Cir. 1990). The trial court, therefore, must "assess the adequacy of the nonmovants' response and whether that showing, on admissible evidence, would be sufficient to carry the burden of proof at trial." Hartnagel, 953 F.2d at 396 (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. at 2552). If the nonmoving party fails to make a sufficient showing of an essential element of a claim with respect to which it has the burden of proof, then the moving party is "entitled to judgment as a matter of law". Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. at 2552; Woodsmith, 904 F.2d at 1247. However, if the court can conclude that a reasonable trier of fact could return a verdict for the nonmovant, then summary judgment should not be granted. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. at 2510; Burk, 948 F.2d at 492; Woodsmith, 904 F.2d at 1247.
B. Specific Claims at Issue.
(1). Least Restrictive Environment. The initial issue raised by Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is whether Plaintiffs have a constitutionally protected right in residing in the least restrictive living environment consistent with qualified professional judgment.
In Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 315-22, 102 S.Ct. 2452, 2457-61, 73 L.Ed.2d 28 (1982), the Supreme Court concluded that substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment imposes two duties on states concerning the care and training they are obligated to provide institutionalized individuals under their care. First, the states are obligated under the Due Process Clause to provide safe living conditions, freedom from bodily restraint, and minimally adequate training. Id. at 319-320, 102 S.Ct. at 2459-60. In conjunction with this duty to train, the Supreme Court held that states have an obligation to provide such training as "an appropriate professional would consider reasonable to ensure [an individual's] safety and to facilitate his ability to function free from bodily restraints." Id. at 324, 102 S.Ct. at 2462. Second, the Supreme Court established in Youngberg that the state are required to make certain that professional judgment is being exercised in making those decisions concerning the care and training of institutionalized individuals. Id. at 321, 102 S.Ct. at 2461.
Following the Supreme Court's decision in Youngberg, several circuits have uniformly concluded that there is no federal right to treatment in the least restrictive setting. Lelsz v. Kavanagh, 807 F.2d 1243, 1251 (5th Cir.1987); Society for Good Will to Retarded Children v. Cuomo, 737 F.2d 1239, 1249 (2d Cir.1984) (Society for Good Will I ); Phillips v. Thompson, 715 F.2d 365, 368 (7th Cir. 1983); see Jackson v. Fort Stanton Hosp. & Training Sch., 964 F.2d 980, 992 (10th Cir. 1992) (noting that "[c]ommunity placement is only one of various possible ways in which the state may comply with its constitutional obligations to adequately care for and train involuntarily committed individuals."); cf. Hanson ex rel. Hanson v. Clarke County, Iowa, 867 F.2d 1115, 1120 (8th Cir.1989) (denying plaintiff's contention that she had right to funding for placement in the "least restrictive environment 1352 consistent with qualified professional judgment.").[5] Following this *1352 considerable case authority, the court concludes that the United States Constitution does not require that the Plaintiff class members be provided habilitation in the least restrictive environment. Lelsz, 807 F.2d at 1251. This conclusion, however, still leaves open the question of whether qualified professional judgment is being exercised here with respect to treatment of plaintiffs.
(2). Qualified Professional Judgment. As noted above, even if Plaintiffs do not have a right to habilitation in the least restrictive setting, the issue remains whether Plaintiffs have received minimally adequate habilitation

consistent with qualified professional judgment. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals explained the role of experts in evaluating what constitutes the minimum professional standards:
"[T]he role of the experts is only to assist the court in ascertaining what the minimum professional standard is ...." [Society for Good Will I,] 737 F.2d at 1248. Expert reports and testimony should be used only to establish the general parameters of acceptable, constitutional activity, and not whether the exercised professional was indisputably correct and unassailable 0907 or for that matter even a better approach to the problem. The district court's role in this respect was not to evaluate different choices and determine which of these choices were better; rather, the court was required to evaluate the challenged treatment to determine whether such treatment had substantially met professionally accepted standards.
Society for Good Will to Retarded Children v. Cuomo, 902 F.2d 1085, 1089-90 (2d Cir. 1990) (Society for Good Will II).
In support of their motion for summary judgment, Defendants have submitted the affidavits of eleven professionals.[6] Nine of these professionals specifically opine in their affidavits that the care and treatment provided at both Woodward and Glenwood either meet or exceed professionally acceptable treatment.[7] Each of these nine experts renders his or her opinion on a different aspect of care and treatment at Glenwood and Woodward. The court concludes that Defendants have carried their initial burden under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) of demonstrating the lack of a genuine issue of material fact as to the question of whether Plaintiffs are receiving minimally adequate habilitation consistent with qualified professional judgment.
Plaintiffs have countered with portions of deposition testimony given by four experts.[8] First, Sue Gant avers in her deposition that the overall treatment at Woodward is not within the limits of professionally acceptable treatment, and is "barely minimally adequate." Gant Dep. at 191. Ms. Gant goes on to state that the overall treatment at Glenwood is "much less than even minimal." Id. at 192. Kathleen Moore testified at her deposition that Defendants have failed to provide Plaintiffs with minimally adequate training or habilitation to ensure them freedom from undue restraint, and that Defendants have failed to make appropriate placements available or to develop appropriate living environments for Plaintiffs. Moore Dep. at 170. Dr. Philip R. Ziring stated in his 1353 deposition that the neurological services, use of *1353 psychotropic drugs, and use of restraints by Defendants were "clearly below the standard of practice." Ziring Dep. at 78-79. Finally, Elizabeth Jones testified at her deposition that she believed that "Glenwood is a harmful, damaging place." Jones Dep. at 180. She was of the further opinion that Defendants had failed to provide Plaintiffs with minimally adequate treatment, training, or habilitation sufficient to ensure Plaintiffs freedom from undue restraint. Id. at 189-190. Through production of these depositions Plaintiffs have fulfilled their obligation under Rule 56(e) to designate "specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); see Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. at 2553.
Given the diametrically opposed opinions of the parties' respective experts on the issue of whether Defendants are providing Plaintiffs with minimally adequate care and treatment, the court concludes that a question of material fact has been generated on this issue which precludes the granting of summary judgment. As the court noted above, see supra at 1349, "`on summary judgment the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts ... must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.'" Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587, 106 S.Ct. at 1356 (quoting Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. at 655, 82 S.Ct. at 994). Similarly, until the issue of what constitutes the minimally appropriate treatment and care for Plaintiffs is resolved, the closely related issue of whether the relief sought by Plaintiffs is appropriate cannot be resolved.
(3). Procedural Due Process Claim. Defendants next challenge Plaintiffs' claim that they are entitled by procedural due process "to periodic hearings to determine whether the bases for their confinements continue to exist." Count IV, Fourth Am.Compl.[9] Defendants specifically argue that because Plaintiffs have pointed to no state created entitlement, Plaintiffs have no procedural due process right to periodic reviews.
In order to support a procedural due process claim, Plaintiffs must first show that they have been deprived of a significant interest protected under the Constitution. Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 425, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 1809, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979). This interest can arise either from the Constitution itself or from state law. Hewitt v.

Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 466, 103 S.Ct. 864, 868, 74 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983). Two United States Circuit Courts of Appeals have recognized that periodic review is required. In Clark v. Cohen, 794 F.2d 79, 86 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 962, 107 S.Ct. 459, 93 L.Ed.2d 404 (1986), the Third Circuit noted that "due process required periodic reviews of [a patient's] continuing need for institutionalization." The court went on to point out that "[p]eriodic reviews are required because if the basis for a commitment ceases to exist, continued confinement violates the substantive liberty interest in freedom from unnecessary restraint." Id. Similarly in Doe ex rel. Doe v. Austin, 848 F.2d 1386, 1395-96 (6th Cir.), cert. denied sub. nom, Cowherd v. Doe ex rel. Doe, 488 U.S. 967, 109 S.Ct. 495, 102 L.Ed.2d 531 (1988), the Sixth Circuit stated, "Of course, because involuntary commitment cannot continue after the basis for that commitment ceases to exist, due process requires that some periodic review take place during confinement."[10]
The court, therefore, finds that because Plaintiffs do state a cognizable claim in Count IV of their latest amended complaint, this aspect of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment shall be denied.[11]
1354 *1354 (4). Section 1983 Enforceability. Defendants next challenge whether Plaintiffs may seek enforcement of Medicaid provisions of Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1396d, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.[12]
In Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1, 4, 100 S.Ct. 2502, 2504, 65 L.Ed.2d 555 (1980), the Supreme Court held that § 1983 provides a mechanism to enforce violations of federal statutes as well as constitutional violations. Two exceptions to this general rule have developed. Under the first exception, no action under § 1983 is available where Congress did not intend the statute in question to create individually enforceable rights. The second exception arises when Congress creates exclusive remedies for the enforcement of a statute which precludes private enforcement under § 1983. Middlesex County Sewerage Auth. v. National Sea Clammers Ass'n, 453 U.S. 1, 20, 101 S.Ct. 2615, 2627, 69 L.Ed.2d 435 (1981). "[I]f there is a state deprivation of a `right' secured by a federal statute, § 1983 provides a remedial cause of action unless the state actor demonstrates by express provision or other specific evidence from the statute itself that Congress intended to foreclose such private enforcement." Wright v. City of Roanoke Redevelopment & Hous. Auth., 479 U.S. 418, 423, 107 S.Ct. 766, 770, 93 L.Ed.2d 781 (1987).
The Eighth Circuit recently set out in Arkansas Medical Soc'y, Inc. v. Reynolds, 6 F.3d 519 (8th Cir.1993), the appropriate framework that courts should employ in analyzing § 1983 enforceability questions:
The framework is really a two step process. In step one, a court must decide whether the claim actually involves a violation of a federal right, as opposed to a violation of federal law. For this first step, the plaintiff asserting the right has the burden. Factors which bear on the resolution of this question include: (a) whether the statutory provision in question was intended to benefit the plaintiff; (b) whether the statute creates a binding obligation on the state government as opposed to merely expressing a congressional preference; and (c) whether the interest asserted by the plaintiff is sufficiently specific and definite as to be within the competence of the judiciary to enforce. In the second step, the court must determine if Congress has foreclosed enforcement under § 1983. On this point, the defendant bears the burden and the inquiry focuses on whether Congress has provided a comprehensive and carefully tailored remedial scheme within the statute in question, so as to make enforcement under § 1983 inconsistent.
Id. at 523 (citations omitted). Applying this framework in Reynolds, the court of appeals concluded that an alleged violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(30)(A) by the Arkansas Department of Human Services gave rise to a cognizable 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Id. at 528; see also Nebraska Health Care Ass'n v. Dunning, 778 F.2d 1291, 1295 (8th Cir.1985) (holding that the Social Security Act "is a `law' within meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983....").
As to step one, the court concludes that a federal right is provided for by the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1396d. First, the court finds that Plaintiffs are the intended beneficiaries of § 1396d and the implementing regulations found in 42 C.F.R. ¶ 483. By way of example, both 42 C.F.R. ¶ 483.10 and ¶ 483.13 speak in terms of residents' "rights." Second, the court concludes that the language found in these laws is sufficiently mandatory to constitute a binding obligation on the part of the state here. The state is not merely providing regulatory oversight in this case, but is also wearing the hat of the care provider. It is the existence of this unusual fact which

distinguishes this case from the likes of the Fifth Circuit's decision in Stewart v. Bernstein, 769 F.2d 1088 (5th 1355 Cir.1985), *1355 upon which Defendants cite in support of their position.[13] The implementing federal
regulations repeatedly speak in terms of what the facility "must" provide to its residents. This language is not "merely precatory, it is imperative." Reynolds, 6 F.3d at 526. Finally, the court rejects Defendants' contention that the language contained in § 1396d and the implementing regulations are too vague or amorphous to enforce by way of § 1983. For the reasons stated above, the court finds that first prong of the test has been met here.
Turning to the second prong of the test, whether Congress has foreclosed enforcement under § 1983, the court finds this part of the test controlled by the Supreme Court's decision in Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 110 S.Ct. 2510, 110 L.Ed.2d 455 (1990). As the Eighth Circuit pointed out in Reynolds:
As to the second prong of the Golden State [Transit Corp. v. City of Los Angeles, 493 U.S. 103, 110 S.Ct. 444, 107 L.Ed.2d 420 (1989)] test, we need not go no further than the Wilder opinion. The Wilder Court found that Congress had not foreclosed § 1983 enforcement in the Medicaid statute, Wilder, 496 U.S. at 520-23, 110 S.Ct. at 2523-24, and we are bound by that judgment.
Reynolds, 6 F.3d at 528. Thus, having found both prongs of the Reynolds test satisfied here, the court concludes that Plaintiffs may seek enforcement of § 1396d through use of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Therefore, this aspect of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment shall be denied.
(5). Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Defendants next attack Plaintiffs' claims grounded on section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. The court will consider each of these claims seriatim.
(a). Section 504. First, with respect to their Section 504 claim, Plaintiffs contend that this section mandates mentally disabled individuals have the right to minimally adequate habilitation in a community based setting.[14] Defendants allegedly violated this statute by failing to provide community based alternatives for Plaintiffs in lieu of institutionalization. Am.Compl. at Count XXXIV. Because the court concludes that section 504 does not create an obligation upon Defendants to undertake the action sought by Plaintiffs, this portion of this complaint must be dismissed.
Under section 504, an individual who is otherwise qualified to perform a task or to receive the benefits of any program or activity that receives federal assistance may not be denied these opportunities merely because of an existing handicap. Kentucky Ass'n for Retarded Citizens v. Conn, 510 F.Supp. 1233, 1243 (W.D.Ky.1980), aff'd 674 F.2d 582 (6th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Bruington v. Conn, 459 U.S. 1041, 103 S.Ct. 457, 74 L.Ed.2d 609 (1982). The statute contains no language explicitly imposing an affirmative action on the part of a state. See Monahan v. Nebraska, 687 F.2d 1164, 1170 (8th Cir. 1982), cert. denied sub nom. Rose v. Nebraska, 460 U.S. 1012, 103 S.Ct. 1252, 75 L.Ed.2d 481 (1983).
The position that section 504 does not require federal funding recipients to undertake affirmative action is supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397, 99 1356 S.Ct. 2361, 60 L.Ed.2d 980 (1979).[15] In *1356 Davis, which concerned a hearing impaired student's attempt to gain admission to a nursing program, the Court noted that the student's admission would require a substantial modification of the school's facilities, and pointed out that "neither the language, purpose, nor history of [section] 504 reveals an intent to impose an affirmative-action obligation on all recipients of federal funds." Id. at 411, 99 S.Ct. at 2369.
The denial of community based habilitation services to mentally disabled individuals does not constitute a viable cause of under section 504. Sabo v. O'Bannon, 586 F.Supp. 1132, 1137 (E.D.Pa.1984); See Kentucky Ass'n for Retarded Citizens, Inc. v. Conn, 674 F.2d 582, 585 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1041, 103 S.Ct. 457, 74 L.Ed.2d 609 (1982) (holding that section 504 does not include a legislative mandate for deinstitutionalization); see also Manecke v. School Bd., 553 F.Supp. 787, 790 n. 4 (M.D.Fla.1982), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 762 F.2d 912 (11th Cir. 1985); Garrity v. Gallen, 522 F.Supp. 171, 213 (D.N.H.1981).
Therefore, because the case law and the statutory language does not support requiring Defendants to take affirmative action, the court holds that to the extent Plaintiffs seek under section 504 to assert a claim in Count

XXXIV that Defendants are required to create community based services for all subclass c Plaintiffs, that portion of Count XXXIV must be denied.
The conclusion reached by the court above, however, does not conclude its analysis of Plaintiffs claims on this issue. In interpreting its decision in Davis, the Supreme Court pointed out:
Davis addressed that portion of section 504 which requires that a handicapped individual be "otherwise qualified" before the nondiscrimination principle of section 504 becomes relevant. However, the question of who is "otherwise qualified" and what actions constitute "discrimination" under the section would seem to be two sides of a single coin; the ultimate question is the extent to which a grantee is required to make reasonable modifications in its programs for the needs of the handicapped.
Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 299 n. 19, 105 S.Ct. 712, 719, n. 19, 83 L.Ed.2d 661 (1985). The Court went on to note:
Davis thus struck a balance between the statutory rights of the handicapped to be integrated into society and the legitimate interests of federal grantees in preserving the integrity of their programs: while a grantee need not be required to make "fundamental" or "substantial" modifications to accommodate the handicapped, it may be required to make "reasonable ones."
Id. at 300, 105 S.Ct. at 720.
This balance struck in Davis requires that Defendants make reasonable accommodations for those otherwise qualified Plaintiffs seeking access to community based programs.[16] The multiple disabilities of Plaintiffs, and their severity, are disabilities under section 504 which cannot solely constitute the reason for denying Plaintiffs' access to community based programs. See Plummer ex rel. Plummer v. Branstad, 731 F.2d 574, 578 (8th Cir.1984); Garrity v. Gallen, 522 F.Supp. 171, 214-15 (D.N.H.1981); Lynch v. Maher, 507 F.Supp. 1268, 1278-79 & n. 15 (D.Conn.1981). Plaintiffs assert that Defendants have excluded them from consideration for community 1357 based facilities solely on the *1357 basis of the severity of their handicaps.[17] The court finds that Defendants have failed to meet their initial burden of demonstrating a lack of a genuine issue of material fact. See Hartnagel, 953 F.2d at 395. Clearly, material fact questions exist here as to whether Plaintiffs are "otherwise qualified" for community based programs, whether Plaintiffs were excluded from these programs solely by reason of the severity of their handicaps, and whether Defendants could have made reasonable accommodations for Plaintiffs' handicaps. Therefore, this aspect of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment shall be denied.
(b). Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Defendants also challenge Plaintiffs claim brought under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12132.[18] Section 12132, Title 42 U.S.C., states:
Subject to the provisions of this sub-chapter, no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.
Because the court concludes that Title II of the ADA does not mandate deinstitutionalization, Plaintiffs' claim under the ADA must be dismissed.
It should be noted initially that neither party has cited any case law interpreting this section of Title II of the ADA. The court, therefore, has been guided in its decision by the language of the ADA and its legislative history. The court notes that neither the explicit language of the ADA nor its legislative history call for or require deinstitutionalization of mentally disabled individuals. Indeed, the legislative history of the statue does not even discuss such a proposition. This dearth of support in the text and legislative history of the ADA leads the court to the inescapable conclusion that the ADA does not require deinstitutionalization of mentally disabled individuals. Clearly, if Congress had actually intended to require states to provide community based programs for mentally disabled individuals currently residing in institutional settings, it surely would have found a less oblique way of doing so.

This conclusion is supported by the legislative history of Title II of the ADA. Section 12132 of Title II was intended to
extend[] the nondiscrimination policy in section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to cover all State and local governmental entities. Specifically, section [12132] provides that no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination by a department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or local government.
The Committee has chosen not to list all the types of actions that are included within the term "discrimination," as was done in titles I and III, because this title essentially simply extends the antidiscrimination prohibition embodies in section 504 to all actions of state and local governments.... Finally, it is the Committee's intent that section [12132] also be interpreted consistent with Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 [105 S.Ct. 712, 83 L.Ed.2d 661] (1985).
H.R.Rep. No. 101-485(II), 101st Cong., 2nd Sess. 84 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 267, 303, 367 (1990). The significance of this legislative history is that it clearly reflects Congress' intent that Title II of the ADA was to be interpreted consistent with prior interpretations of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. As discussed above, the court does not construe section 504 to require Defendants to undertake such an affirmative 1358 action as providing community *1358 based services to Plaintiffs. Consistent with this court's interpretation of section 504 and the Supreme Court's holding in Choate, 469 U.S. at 300, 105 S.Ct. at 719-20, that states need not make "fundamental" or "substantial" modifications to their programs, the court concludes that Plaintiffs' claim in Count XXXV that Defendants are required to create alternative community based services for Plaintiffs must be denied.[19] This segment of the motion for summary judgment shall, therefore, be granted and Count XXXV shall be dismissed.[20]
(6). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Finally, the court shall consider Defendants' assertions with respect to Plaintiffs' claims under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. § 1400.[21]
The IDEA requires states to provide all disabled children with a "free appropriate public education." 20 U.S.C. § 1412(1); see Board of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 200, 102 S.Ct. 3034, 3047, 73 L.Ed.2d 690 (1982).[22] IDEA also requires that this education take place to the maximum extent possible with nondisabled children in the least restrictive environment consistent with the needs of the disabled children.[23]See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(5). In order to provide that all children with disabilities receive an appropriate public education, the education provided to children with disabilities must be tailored to the unique needs of each child through employment of an individualized education plan ("IEP").[24]See 20 U.S.C. § 1401(a)(20). Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have failed to meet these measures under the IDEA.
In support of their motion on these claims, Defendants have submitted the affidavit of Charles M. Palmer. Mr. Palmer avers that: "School-aged residents of Glenwood and Woodward are educated in the local Glenwood, Woodward/Granger, Ruby Van Meter, Adel, Boone, Council Bluffs, and Des Moines public school systems." Palmer Aff. at ¶ 8. The paucity of Mr. Palmer's affidavit, together with Defendants' other submissions in support of their motion, fails to establish Defendants' initial burden under Rule 56(c) of showing that segment of the record which demonstrates the lack of genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. at 2552-53. The court, therefore, concludes that Defendants' motion shall be denied with respect to Plaintiffs' claims under the IDEA.[25]
IV. CONCLUSION
1359 For the reasons stated above, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is denied in *1359 part and granted in part. The court grants Defendants' motion as to Count XXXV, Plaintiffs' claim under the ADA, and that count is dismissed. The court further concludes that Defendants' motion shall be granted as to Plaintiffs' claim in Count XXXIV that under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act Defendants are required to create community based

services. Finally, the court grants Defendants' motion with respect to Plaintiffs' claims that under the Due Process Clause they have a right to placement in the least restrictive environment consistent with qualified professional judgment. In all other respects, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
[1] This lawsuit is brought pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794; the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12132; the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1485; Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1396d; and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
[2] Since filing their initial complaint, Plaintiffs have filed four amended and substituted complaints. The last of these amended and substituted complaints was filed on February 25, 1993.
[3] There are seven named representative of Plaintiffs' class: Evert Conner, Pauline Crouse, Michael Monahan, Amanda Poulos, Archie Pratt, Pamela Schuler, and Jennalee Sturtz. The other named Plaintiff is the Iowa Protection and Advocacy Services, Inc. The court was informed by Plaintiffs' counsel at the time of the hearing on this motion that Mr. Conner is now deceased.
[4] An issue of material fact is genuine if it has a real basis in the record. Hartnagel v. Norman, 953 F.2d 394 (8th Cir.1992) (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1355-56, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986)). A genuine issue of fact is material if it "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Id. (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)).
[5] It bears mentioning that at the time that this lawsuit was commenced, some case law from other districts, but no circuit courts of appeal, supported Plaintiffs' theory of a right to habilitation in the least restrictive setting. See Philipp v. Carey, 517 F.Supp. 513, 518 (N.D.N.Y.1981); Society for Good Will to Retarded Children, Inc. v. Cuomo, 572 F.Supp. 1300, 1347 (E.D.N.Y.1983), vacated, 737 F.2d 1239 (2nd Cir.1984); cf. Lelsz v. Kavanagh, 629 F.Supp. 1487, 1495 (N.D.Tex. 1986) (enforcing consent decree provision for community placement), vacated, 807 F.2d 1243 (5th Cir.1987). Regrettably, in this court's view the legal winds have since shifted to the detriment of Plaintiffs' position.
[6] Defendants have submitted the affidavits of Charles M. Palmer (Ex. A); Michael J. Levine (Ex. B); Richard Saunders (Ex. D); Alfred A. Baumeister (Exs. F-G); Justine Joan Sheppard (Ex. J); Johnny L. Matson (Ex. L); John French (Ex. N); John Marinkovich (Ex. P); Robert T. Sprague (Ex. R); Michael H. Hart (Ex. T); and Herbert Grossman (Ex. X).
[7] The nine experts who found the treatment to meet professional standards were Levine, Saunders, Baumeister, Sheppard, Matson, French, Marinkovich, Grossman, Hart, and Sprague.
[8] Plaintiffs have presented the testimony of Sue A. Gant, Phillip R. Ziring, Kathleen Moore, and Elizabeth Jones.
[9] Defendants incorrectly attribute Plaintiffs' procedural due process claim to Count V.
[10] Neither of the cases cited by Defendants is controlling on this issue. Indeed, neither the Supreme Court's decision in Connecticut Board of Pardons v. Dumschat, 452 U.S. 458, 101 S.Ct. 2460, 69 L.Ed.2d 158 (1981), nor its decision in Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985), dealt with individuals committed to state institutions. The court, therefore, finds that those cases provide no guidance on this issue.
[11] The record is murky at best as to whether Plaintiffs are at Glenwood and Woodward voluntarily, or whether they were involuntarily committed. Because resolution of this aspect of the motion for summary judgment is not dependent on the outcome of this factual query, it shall remain for the parties to develop this factual aspect at trial. The court, of course, expresses no opinion as to what, if any, effect Plaintiffs' particular status might have on this particular claim.

[12] It should be noted that Judge Vietor addressed this issue in his order denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and concluded that Plaintiffs stated a viable § 1983 claim in Count V. Ruling Den. Mot. to Dismiss and Order Permitting Am. at 2, June 22, 1987.
[13] In Stewart, the Fifth Circuit concluded that because its holding rested "on absence of action under color of state law, we need not address the nature of the substantive rights available through the Social Security Act that are enforceable against the state under § 1983." Stewart, 769 F.2d at 1090 n. 2.
[14] Section 794 provides in part:
No otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the United States, as defined in § 706(6) of this title, shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or under any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency or by the United States Postal Service.
[15] The term "affirmative action" refers to "`changes,' `adjustments,' or `modifications' to existing programs that would be `substantial,' or that would constitute `fundamental alteration[s] in the nature of the program....,' rather than to those changes that would be reasonable accommodations." Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 301 n. 20, 105 S.Ct. 712, 720 n. 20, 83 L.Ed.2d 661 (1985) (citations omitted).
[16] The Eighth Circuit has adopted the following four part test for establishing a claim under section 504:
(1) that the plaintiff is a "handicapped individual" under the terms of the statute; (2) that the plaintiff is "otherwise qualified" to participate in the program or activity at issue; (3) that the plaintiff was excluded from the program or activity "solely by reason" of her or his handicap; and (4) that the program or activity receives federal financial assistance, or is conducted by an executive agency of the United States Postal Service.
Plummer ex rel. Plummer v. Branstad, 731 F.2d 574, 577 (8th Cir.1984) (citing Doe v. New York Univ., 666 F.2d 761, 774-775 (2d Cir.1981)).
[17] By way of example, Plaintiffs assert that Plaintiff Amanda Poules will not be admitted to a community based intermediate care facility because she has a gastrostomy tube. Fourth Am. Compl. at ¶ 42.
[18] In Count XXXV of their fourth amended complaint, Plaintiffs assert that Defendants have failed to provide community based programming alternatives to Plaintiffs and have thus violated a mandate of the ADA that programming be administered in the most integrated setting appropriate for Plaintiffs.
[19] Plaintiffs rely almost exclusively on 28 CFR § 35.130(d) to support their position. Section 35.130(d) states that "[a] public entity shall administer services, programs, and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the need of qualified individuals with disabilities." The court does not interpret this regulation as requiring states to create community based, or expand those programs currently in existence.
[20] The court notes that while a sub-class of Plaintiffs seek relief in Count XXXIV under section 504, the entire Plaintiffs' class seeks relief under the ADA. Therein lies the reason for the disparity in the court's treatment of the claims. The sub class c Plaintiffs assert in respect to their claims under section 504 that they have been subjected to discrimination based on the severity of their disabilities. No such assertion is made by Plaintiffs with respect to their ADA claims.
[21] Plaintiffs' claims with respect to the IDEA are found in Counts XXX through XXXIII of Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint.
[22] The purpose behind the IDEA was to rectify the discrimination suffered by children with disabilities at the hands of public schools. See Rowley, 458 U.S. at 179, 189, 102 S.Ct. at 3037, 3042.
[23] This concept is referred to as "mainstreaming." See Sherri A.D. v. Kirby, 975 F.2d 193, 206 (5th Cir.1992).
[24] Disabled schoolchildren and their parents must be permitted to be involved in developing their child's IEP. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(a)(20). Each child's IEP must be reviewed on at least an annual basis. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(5).

[25] The question of the court's jurisdiction on Plaintiffs' claims under the IDEA has not been raised by Defendants. The court notes that when a party wishes to appeal a dispute with a local public school district, the party may obtain an "impartial due process hearing" before a hearing officer. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(2). If either party is dissatisfied with the result of the hearing before the special education hearing officer, that party may then appeal to federal district court. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2).
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 </s> Conner v. Branstad

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA.-. CENTRAL DIVISION

EVERT CONNER, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated; and
IOWA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES, INC., an Iowa nonprofit corporation,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
TERRY BRANSTAD, in his official capacity as Governor, State of Iowa;
MICHAEL V. REAGEN, individually and in his official capacity as Commissioner, Iowa Department of Human Services;
CHARLES M. PALMER, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Commissioner and Director, Division of Mental Health, Mental Retardation, and Developmental Disabilities, Iowa Department of Human Services;
LARRY JACKSON, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Commissioner and Director, Division of Community Services, Iowa Department of Human Services;
SANDRA SCOTT, individually and in her official capacity as Deputy Commissioner and Director, Division of Social Services, Iowa Department of Human Services;
MICHAEL DAVIS, individually and in his official capacity as Superintendent, Woodward State Hospital-School; and

..-; . t w . ^ i i .
86-871-B
CIVIL ACTION NO.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND COMPENSATORY DAMAGES

WILLIAM E. CAMPBELL, individually )

and in his official capacity as )

Superintendent, Glenwood State

)

Hospital-School,

)

)

Defendants.

)

I. INTRODUCTION 1.
This action is brought to challenge Plaintiff Evert Conner's continuing institutionalization at the Glenwood State HospitalSchool. Plaintiff Conner is a fifty-one-year-old man who has been a resident of Glenwood State Hospital-School for eighteen years. For the past eleven of those years, Plaintiff Conner and the professionals who work with him have believed that Mr. Conner should be relocated in a community-based living environment. Plaintiff contends that he and the class he represents have constitutionally protected liberty interests in residing in the least restrictive living environment, consistent with professional judgment. Plaintiff Conner seeks declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of himself and a class which consists of all persons who are or who may become residents of Glenwood or Woodward State Hospital-Schools and who could be appropriately placed in community-based living environments but who remain institutionalized because Defendants have refused, neglected, or otherwise failed to make less restrictive arrangements available. Iowa Protection and Advocacy Services, Inc. joins Plaintiff Conner in asserting the rights of the class.

II. JURISDICTION 2-
Jurisdiction is conferred on this court by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1334(3) and (4) (1982). The action arises under and is authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982).
III. NAMED PLAINTIFFS 3.
Plaintiff Evert Conner is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Iowa. Mr. Conner has been a resident of the Glenwood State Hospital-School for eighteen years. Mr. Conner is diagnosed as having mild mental retardation, cerebral palsy with spastic triplegia, and a hearing impairment. Plaintiff Conner is confined to a positioning wheelchair.
4. Plaintiff Iowa Protection and Advocacy Services, Inc. (hereinafter P & A) is a federally funded Iowa nonprofit corporation. P & A is an organization formed to advocate on behalf of developmentally disabled and mentally ill persons in the State of Iowa. Under the federal Developmental Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 6000-6083 (1982 & Supp. Ill 1985), P & A has the responsibility and authority, inter alia, to pursue legal, administrative, and other appropriate remedies to protect the rights of developmentally disabled persons who are receiving treatment, services, or habilitation within the State of Iowa.

IV. PLAINTIFF CLASS 5-
Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) (1986), on behalf of a class composed of all persons who are or who may become residents of Glenwood or Woodward State HospitalSchools and who could be appropriately placed in community-based living environments but who remain institutionalized because Defendants and/or their employees or agents have refused, neglected, or otherwise failed: 1) to place them in available community settings; or 2) to establish alternative communitybased living arrangements.
6. The members of the class are so numerous that joinder is impracticable; there are questions of law and fact common to the class; the claims of the representative parties are typical of the claims of the class; the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class; and the parties opposing the class have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive and declaratory relief.
V. DEFENDANTS 7.
Defendant Terry Branstad is Governor of the State of Iowa. As governor, Defendant Branstad has the constitutional responsibility for ensuring that laws are faithfully executed in

the State of Iowa. Defendant Branstad is sued in his official capacity only.
8. Defendant Michael V. Reagen is Commissioner of the Iowa Department of Human Services (hereinafter Department). In his official capacity, Defendant Reagen is responsible for all operations of the Department, including, inter alia, the formulation of policy and establishment of performance standards for all offices and divisions of the Department. Defendant Reagen's responsibilities include operation and management of Glenwood and Woodward State Hospital-Schools and the treatment of residents living therein. Defendant Reagen is sued individually and in his official capacity.
9. Defendant Charles M. Palmer is Deputy Commissioner of the Department and Director of the Division of Mental Health, Mental Retardation, and Developmental Disabilities. In his official capacity, Defendant Palmer directs the administration of Glenwood and Woodward State Hospital-Schools. Defendant Palmer is sued individually and in his official capacity.
10. Defendant Larry Jackson is Deputy Commissioner of the Department and Director of the Division of Community Services. In his official capacity, Defendant Jackson directs the delivery of departmental community-based programs and services. Included among the programs and services for which Defendant Jackson is responsible are residential programs and support services for

persons who are mentally retarded and/or developmentally disabled. Defendant Jackson is sued individually and in his official capacity.
11. Defendant Sandra Scott is Deputy Commissioner of the Department and Director of the Division of Social Services. In her official capacity, Defendant Scott is responsible, inter alia, for the operation of the Title XIX program, 42 U.S.C. § 1396d (1982 & Supp. Ill 1985), in the State of Iowa. Defendant Scott is sued individually and in her official capacity.
12. Defendant William E. Campbell is the Superintendent of Glenwood State Hospital-School (hereinafter Glenwood). Superintendent Campbell is directly responsible for ensuring that the legal rights of each Glenwood resident are fully protected. Defendant Campbell is sued individually and in his official capacity.
13. Defendant Michael Davis is the Superintendent of Woodward State Hospital-School (hereinafter Woodward). Superintendent Campbell is directly responsible for ensuring that the legal rights of each Woodward resident are fully protected. Defendant Davis is sued individually and in his official capacity.
VI. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 14.
Evert Conner is a fifty-one-year-old man who, for the past eighteen years, has resided in Glenwood. Mr. Conner is diagnosed

as having mild mental retardation, cerebral palsy with spastic triplegia, and a hearing impairment. Due to his severe physical handicaps, Mr. Conner is confined to a positioning wheelchair and it is anticipated that he will require lifelong total physical care. A portion of Mr. Conner's care is paid for by funds made available through Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1396d (1982 & Supp. Ill 1985).
15. Mr. Conner receives vocational training at the Production Activity Center on the Glenwood campus. Mr. Conner's objectives include typing and computer programming. Glenwood professional staff members have indicated that Mr. Conner has advanced vocationally as far as is possible under the limitations of the Glenwood programs.
16. Mr. Conner resides in a residential dwelling on the Glenwood campus with several other adult male residents. Mr. Conner is able to constructively structure his leisure time and participates in social/recreational activities with both staff and other residents. He enjoys group functions on and off the Glenwood campus. However, Mr. Conner is frequently unable to participate in community activities in which he expresses interest because of a shortage of vehicles equipped to transport persons confined to wheelchairs.
17. Since 1975, Mr. Conner has expressed a strong desire to be relocated to a group home in the community. Additionally,

members of the Glenwood professional staff who work with Mr. Conner have consistently recommended such placement. Mr. Conner expresses an interest in moving to Des Moines or to Davenport, Iowa, communities with which he is familiar and in which he has friends. However, despite his continuing request, Mr. Conner remains institutionalized at Glenwood.
18. At no time during his eighteen-year residency at Glenwood has Mr. Conner received an impartial hearing by a hearing officer or tribunal with the authority to determine whether there is a basis for his continued confinement at Glenwood. Thus, Mr. Conner remains in an institution which cannot meet his needs. Additionally, such placement restrains Mr. Conner physically, socially, vocationally, and emotionally more than is necessary in the opinion of the professional Glenwood staff familiar with Mr. Conner's case.
19. Since at least August, 1983, the rights asserted herein by the named plaintiffs and the class have been clear and established and Defendants knew, or should have known, of those rights.
8

VII. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT I 20.
The allegations contained in paragraphs one (1) through nineteen (19) above are incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth.
21. Plaintiff Conner and the class have constitutionally protected liberty interests in being placed in the least restrictive living environment, consistent with professional judgment.
22. By refusing, neglecting, or otherwise failing to make appropriate placements or to develop appropriate living environments, Defendants have violated fundamental rights of Plaintiff Conner and the class secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
COUNT II 23.
The allegations contained in paragraphs one (1) through nineteen (19) above are incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth.
24. Plaintiff Conner and the class have a constitutionally protected right to freely associate and communicate with persons of their choice.

25. By refusing, neglecting, or otherwise failing to make appropriate placements or to develop appropriate living environments, Defendants have violated rights of Plaintiff Conner and the class guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
COUNT III 26.
The allegations contained in paragraphs one (1) through nineteen (19) above are incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth.
27. Defendants' actions and omissions complained of herein have deprived Plaintiff Conner of his fundamental constitutional rights of freedom from undue restraint and freedom of association.
28. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' actions and omissions, Plaintiff Conner has suffered damages for which he is entitled to compensation.
COUNT IV 29.
The allegations contained in paragraphs one (1) through nineteen (19) are incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth.
10

30. Plaintiff Conner and the class are entitled by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution to periodic hearings to determine whether the baSeS for their confinements continue to exist. Any such hearing must be conducted by a hearing officer or tribunal with the authority to afford relief if it is found that continued confinement is unnecessary.
31. By refusing, neglecting, or otherwise failing to provide Plaintiff Conner and the class with periodic hearings to determine whether there is a continuing need for confinement, Defendants have acted in violation of Plaintiff Conner's and the class' rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
COUNT V 32.
The allegations of paragraphs one (1) through nineteen (19) above are incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth.
33. 42 U.S.C. § 1396d(d) (1982 & Supp. Ill 1985) and the implementing regulations, 42 C.F.R. §§ 442.400 et seq. (1986), afford Plaintiff Conner and the class the right to habilitative services provided in an active treatment setting. Specifically, Plaintiff Conner and the class have a right to training designed to meet their needs and a right to social services directed
11

toward maximizing their social functioning and fostering their human dignity and personal worth.
34. Because of the limitations inherent in an institutional setting, the vocational, social, and personal needs of Plaintiff Conner and the class members cannot be met. Defendants, by requiring continued placement in Glenwood and Woodward, without the necessary social and habilitative services, have deprived Plaintiff Conner and the class of rights granted them by federal law.
VIII. REQUESTS FOR RELIEF 35.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that the court: a. Determine, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(c) (1986), that this case proceed as a class action, said class consisting of all persons who are or who may become residents of Glenwood or Woodward State HospitalSchools and who could be appropriately placed in communitybased living environments but who remain institutionalized because Defendants and/or their employees or agents have refused, neglected, or otherwise failed: 1) to place them in available community settings; or 2) to establish alternative community-based living arrangements.
b. Appoint, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(a) (1986), a special master to assist the court and the parties in both pre- and post-judgment matters,
12

including but not limited to the identification of class members and the implementation of relief.
c. Enter a declaratory judgment, on behalf of Plaintiff Conner and the class, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2202 (1982), declaring that Defendants' actions and omissions are in violation of:
1) the liberty interests of Plaintiff Conner and the class secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; 2) the right of Plaintiff Conner and the class to freedom of association guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution; and 3) the right of Plaintiff Conner and the class to procedural due process rights conferred by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. d. Issue a preliminary and permanent mandatory injunction requiring Defendants to: 1) identify all persons who are presently members of the plaintiff class; 2) locate or establish appropriate communitybased living environments for all members of the plaintiff class; and 3) develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure that all future members of the plaintiff class are accurately identified, that their needs for institutionalization are periodically reviewed
13

by an impartial hearing officer or tribunal, and that they are placed in the least restrictive environments appropriate, in accordance with professional judgment. e. Award Plaintiff Conner compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the court. f. Award Plaintiffs all costs expended herein and assess all costs against Defendants. g. Award Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys' fees in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (1982). h. Grant Plaintiffs and the class such other and further relief as may be deemed appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
Carroll L. Lucht Clinical Law Programs College of Law University of Iowa Iowa City, Iowa 52242 (319) 353-9023
(2.
Sondra B. Kaska Iowa Protection & Advocacy
Services, Inc. 3015 Merle Hay Road, Suite 6 Des Moines, Iowa 50310 (515) 278-2502 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS
14

 </s> Conner v. Branstad
•llilll
PLAN FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Relating to: Conner vs. Branstad Consent Decree
Developed by the Department of Human Services Division of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities
March 12, 1996

PLAN FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BACKGROUND
In December, 1986, a law suit was filed by a number of people residing at Glenwood and Woodward State Hospital Schools in cooperation with Iowa Protection and Advocacy Service, Inc. The suit challenged the continuation of Iowa's institutionally based model of services for persons with developmental disabilities. On November 14, 1994, a settlement was reached.
The Consent Decree requires the Department of Human Services to develop a plan. The purpose of this plan is to identify and provide for the development of appropriate community supports and services needed for community placement of people who reside at either Glenwood or Woodward State Hospital-Schools. This plan is designed to assist those residents of the state hospital schools who wish to leave the institutions, to do so. In order for this to occur, community resources must be available. Discharges will not be forced on those who wish to continue to reside at either of the two schools, nor will discharges be made solely for the purpose of "downsizing". Each individual's needs and desires will drive the discharge process.
It is recognized that the role of the State Hospital-Schools (SHSs) is changing from one of permanent long term care and toward shorter term and support services. Both schools are experiencing more short term admissions, assessments and evaluations, consultations, and other forms of community supports. As part of the oversight responsibility associated with this plan, statistics from the SHSs will be reviewed to assure the continuation of this trend, with the assumption that the activities within this plan will assist in this change.
It is also recognized that county governments, through the development of their county management plans, have the responsibility for planning for the development of services for people with mental retardation. This plan will build on this responsibility and focus on how the Department of Human Services can assist, ease, and otherwise support the counties in this planning.
An Advisory Committee assisted the Division of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities in drafting this plan by recommending specific goals and strategies and by also identifying training and other issues of concern. The committee consisted of:
Rik Shannon, Arc Iowa Lyle and Ruth Sturtz, Parents Connie Fanselow and Merv Roth, Iowa Protection and Advocacy Gayla Harkin, Story County Community Life Linda Hinton, Iowa Association of Rehabilitation and Residential Facilities Murlean Hull, DD Council Deb Westvold, Iowa State Association of Counties

Bob Bacon, Iowa University Affiliated Program Mary Hodapp, Woodward State Hospital School Diana Hoogistraat, Glenwood State Hospital School Loren Bawn, State/County Assistance Team, Department of Human Services Jim Chesnik, Housing Specialist, Division of Mental Health and Developmental
Disabilities, Department of Human Services Janet Shoeman, DD Specialist, Division of Mental Health and Developmental
Disabilities, Department of Human Services
Essential Lifestyle Planning This past year, a new type of planning process was begun at the SHSs. Each person residing at the two schools is developing an Essential Lifestyle Plan. This plan is different from, and in addition to, the traditional goal/objective development planning process. Essential Lifestyle planning is a structured way of learning how people want to live in order to plan for the person's future. Essential Lifestyle planning is:
• a snapshot of how someone wants to live today, serving as a blueprint for how to support someone tomorrow,
• a way of organizing and communicating what is important to an individual in "user friendly", plain English.
• a flexible process that can be used in combination with other person centered planning techniques,
• a way of making sure that the person is heard, regardless of the severity of their disability.
This Essential Lifestyle Plan is the cornerstone to both the development of specific out placement plans for an individual as well as the over all service/housing development by the community. This information on an individual level, is used to determine where and how the person wants to live and work. This information on a systems level, can be used to help communities develop services that will meet the needs and desires of their citizens.
GOALS/ACTION STEPS
This plan has five major goals. Two of these goals focus specifically on the relationship between the SHSs and the counties, two goals focus on the development of community supports and one focuses on the need to build community capabilities through training. These goals will be reviewed at least annually and changes and additions will be made at that time.
State Hospital-School/County Relationship Goal 1: Develop and implement a clear and consistent process to share information between the state hospital schools, central point of coordination, DHS workers and Case Managers (both county and DHS) for the purposes of individual planning and services development.

Goal 2: Provide for a smooth transition for individuals who move from the State Hospital Schools to full community life.

Community Development of Services and Supports Goal 3: Service, supports and resources shall be developed, as needed, to assist consumers who wish to leave the SHSs to live, learn, work, and socialize in the community of their choice. Goal 4: Consumers have safe, affordable housing available in the community of their choice.

Training

^

Goal 5: Community will have the capacity to provide the services and supports

needed to assure that people can reside within their own communities and

avoid the need for admission into a SHS.

State Hospital-School/County Relationship
GOAL 1: Information Sharing It is recognized that a close relationship between the SHSs and the counties is essential for the success of an individual's movement from the SHS to the community. Information must flow freely between these entities to assist the individual and the overall service development in the communities. The counties and the SHSs need to have a clear and consistent process for sharing this information.
Goal Statement: Develop and implement a clear and consistent process to share information between the state hospital schools, central point of coordination, DHS workers and Case Managers (both county and DHS) for the purposes of individual planning and services development.
A. Have information releases signed by all current residents by July 1996. 1. By March 1996, include information release forms in all admissions packets. These forms will allow the exchange of information between the SHSs and the person or entity designated by the county to implement their management plan. 2. By July 1996, have releases signed by current residents.
B. Identify information and information format needed by counties for planning purposes by Sept. 1996. 1. By May 1, 1996, convene a workgroup of SHS staff, county Central Point of Coordination (CPC) Administrator or designated staff, Case Managers and DHS service coordinators. This workgroup wiil identify what data, both individual and aggregate, will be useful to the CPCs, in what format the data needs to be shared and how often. This workgroup should continue to monitor and adjust the process when necessary.

2. The SHS data system will be modified to provide the information identified as needed according to the timeline set by the workgroup.
3. By July 1996, the SHS staff will be involved in county planning processes. The workgroup consisting of CPC Administrators (or designee) and SHS staff will work together to identify how best to include the input from the SHSs. When the SHSs are aware of a county planning meeting, parents/guardian are notified of the meeting.
C. By Sept. 1996, identify information and information format needed by the SHS to coordinate discharge planning. 1. By March 1996, the SHSs will have a current list of all CPC Administrators and will be kept updated from then on. 2. By May 1996, convene a workgroup of SHS staff and county CPC Administrators (or designee), Case Managers and DHS service coordinators (see above). This workgroup will identify how the SHSs will be included in the county planning processes and division of duties related to discharge planning. 3. The county CPC Administrator or their designee is considered part of the SHSs' Interdisciplinary Team for each person the county is responsible and will be included in the team process as releases are obtained.
Identified Barriers 1. A consumer/guardian may choose not to sign a release to share information
with the CPC. Some information can be shared without a release (information related to being a third party payer), but this information may not assist the county in planning for needed services. The county would also not be able to be involved in the individuals planning process without a signed release. Since the CPC must pre-approve funding for services, this would be a problem if the CPC could not be part of the planning process. 2. Since the SHSs are Intermediate Care Facilities for the Mentally Retarded (ICFs/MR), Targeted Case Management activities cannot be charged for people residing there until 30 days prior to discharge. Counties may choose to involve their Case Managers prior to that, but they would not be able to draw on Medicaid dollars. There must be a smooth process for payment for Case Management services when it is not covered by Medicaid.
GOAL 2: Transition Process Once a placement has been identified a specific transition plan is developed to assist a person in their movement from the SHS to the community. It is recognized that movement from the SHS to the community is a major life change. A smooth, planful transition process is crucial for success. The person needs to have time to build trust within the new situation. Transition plans should be fluid, adjusting to the person's changing needs. Transition plans not only include the residential component but all aspect of the person's life: living, working, learning, socializing.

Goal Statement: Provide for a smooth transition for individuals who move from the State Hospital Schools to full community life.
A. By January 1997, the SHSs will implement a plan for consumers to be able to visit different living options so a more informed choice can be made when discharge becomes eminent. This would not be the same as visiting specific programs that are possible placements, but would be more generic visits, such as visiting friends who live in an apartment to get an idea of what apartment living is like. This could be part of a life experience type of programming available. 1. By September 1996, a workgroup at each SHS will be formed to develop guidelines and procedures for this type of experience. 2. By January 1997, funding and resource issues will be identified in the plan and submitted to the current SHS groups looking at funding options related to their futures planning
B. Transition Plan development will be strengthened. 1. Once a placement has been determined, a specific transition plan is developed based on the person's individual needs. Components of this transition plan may include (this is not meant to be an all inclusive list, but a list of examples): • visits to that site, either day visit or overnights. • visits to the day program, school, etc. • visits by the staff from that program to the SHS to spend time with the person and the direct care staff. • video tapes of the program, area, staff, roommates, etc. to help the person build familiarity. • SHS could go with the resident and stay for a determined amount of time to assist in the transition. • SHS will be available to the community placement for consultation whenever needed. • the person may begin a job first (be transported) then move. By March 1996, the Social Workers and Treatment Program Managers at the SHSs will review transition plan development to be sure all are clear on what could be included in the transition plans. 2. As funding and resource issues are identified they will be submitted to the current SHS groups looking at funding options related to their futures planning 3. By July 1996, transition plans will include how the parents/guardians will be "transitioned". This may include information dissemination, site visits, and active involvement by the parents/guardians in the process.
C. By July 1997, procedures will be recommended which cover resource and funding issues involved in the transition process. The Division of MH/DD will work with the current SHS groups looking at funding options related to their futures planning on the following issues:

• When a person visits a proposed outplacement site and when transitioning to a specific outplacement, who submits the per diem claim? This is a problem when the visit requires significant involvement by staff from both the SHS and the community program. How can the funding be "shared"?
• Funding for continued consultation once the person is discharged from the SHS.
D. The information and training which are provided to the outplacement site will be strengthened. Currently training is given to the outplacement staff concerning any of the person's program information including OT, PT, any adaptive devices, communication systems, self-help program, behavior programs, etc. At times staff from the SHS travel to the outplacement site, at times the outplacement site staff travel to the SHS. 1. The question of funding for training, especially when it is extensive, will be submitted to the current SHS groups looking at funding options related to their futures planning. 2. By April 1996, when a placement is made, the team will put together a list of SHS contact people and contacts for support within the community and give to the provider.
Identified Barriers 1. Funding overlaps in service, when both SHS and a community provider is
involved, can be problematic. 2. Continued involvement by the SHSs once the person is discharged needs a
funding stream.
Community Development of Services and Supports
GOAL 3: Community Services It is recognized that, though the counties may wish to have an organized overall plan for movement of many of their people residing at the SHSs, that true success is achieved by attention to each individual and their needs and wants. The basis for individual support plans is the Essential Lifestyle Plan developed at the SHS in conjunction with the person, their family and their county. It is also recognized that, in service development, the full needs of the person need to be addressed. As people move to smaller, more individualized situations, isolation may occur if leisure skills and community involvement needs are not addressed.
Goal Statement: Service, supports and resources shall be developed, as needed, to assist consumers who wish to leave the SHSs to live, learn, work, and socialize in the community of their choice.

A.. By April 1, 1996, the state will provide counties with information on the Conner Decree. The counties will be encouraged to work cooperatively with each other in the development of needed services. Information may be presented at the IS AC Spring School in March 1996.
B. Counties will be involved in the Essential Lifestyle Plan for their people at the SHSs. This will occur as Release of Information forms are signed to allow this information exchange. 1. By April 1996, county CPC Administrators (or designee) will be considered part of the SHSs' Interdisciplinary Team and will receive notices of planning sessions as releases are signed. 2. As Information Release Forms are completed, CPC Administrators will receive the information packets on all of their residents who have already gone through the Essential Lifestyle planning. 3. By April 1996, SHS will begin notifying CPC Administrators of the training times available at the SHSs in the Essential Lifestyle Planning. Basic information on the process and what is included in an Essential Lifestyle Plan will also be given to the CPC.
C. By September 1996, the state will develop and distribute aggregate information on people residing in the SHSs. This information will be particularly useful for the development of services for low incidence populations with specialized needs. In order to plan effectively, counties need to know with whom they need to coordinate. 1. By May 1996, develop a workgroup of SHS staff and county CPC Administrators (or their designees) (see Goal 1). This workgroup will identify what data in what format the data needs to be shared and how often. This workgroup should continue after Sept. 1996 to monitor and adjust the process when necessary
D. A Crisis Intervention Plan or Network will be designed and implemented. This network could be either a private agency network, a network supported by the SHSs or a combination of the two. This plan should include how to fund the service and how to make it geographically accessible. This plan should include exploring the addition of crisis intervention as a HCB service under the MR waiver. 1. By June 1996, a steering committee will be put together. This committee will design the first steps of the development of the planning process. They will look at who should be involved, how to organize the Network, and whether planning should be on a regional basis. 2. By September 1996, an initial timeline for implementation will be developed. Components of the system/network will be implemented as appropriate, not waiting until full program is designed.
E. Training costs will be made an allowable cost within the service rate under the MR waiver distinct from Administration costs. 1. By September 1996, the Division will put together a workgroup in cooperation with the Division of Medical Services, SHS staff and county representation to develop this process.
8

Identified Barriers 1. The Home and Community Based waiver for people with mental retardation
needs to be revised. HCB waivers are a very flexible program at the Federal level and can be designed to meet most needs. A close look needs to be given to the services offered under the waiver in relationship to what is needed to support individuals in their communities. Reimbursement processes currently used also need to be reviewed. 2. Regulation for community providers needs to be consistent with the philosophies presented in this plan. This includes Purchase of Service and Department of Inspections and Appeals regulations as well as standards under the purview of the MH/DD Division. 3. Outcome based standards and funding by services instead of service packages needs to be instituted. Accrediting by outcomes and by services will promote the type of development needed for community supports. The proposed Outcome-based Standards Pilot Project should assist in this process.
Goal 4: Community Housing Traditionally housing and services have been packaged together as "residential programs". This usually means that a person must move when their service needs change. For example, if a person's support needs decrease, they may move from a supervised group home to an apartment. Also the opposite occurs, if a person's needs increase, they usually must move to a more restrictive setting. By separating the services from the housing, a person's supports may be increased or decreased as needed without having to change residences. It is recognized that all people need safe, affordable housing. This is not only a "disability issue" but a larger, community issue. Essential Lifestyle Planning includes looking at the desires and abilities of persons to live in the communities and homes of their choice.
Goal Statement: Consumers have safe, affordable homes available in the community of their choice. Housing should not be determined by a service package.
A Information on methods to develop affordable housing will be available to CPC Administrators. 1. Beginning in July 1996 and ongoing, counties will be offered information related to steps of developing affordable housing. This information will focus on organization, planning, development, and management. Counties will be encouraged to facilitate the development of broad based local coalitions that have the common interest of developing affordable housing opportunities. 2. Counties wanting technical assistance will be provided with methods to develop Strategic Housing Development Plans.

B. An important part of Housing Development Plans comprises ways that communities can facilitate access to a variety of housing options. In order to accomplish this: 1. By September 1996, the Division will put together a workgroup in cooperation with the Division of Medical Services, SHS staff and county representation. This workgroup will consider the following options and present a plan for implementation by July 1997: a The use of family homes, including Family Life Homes, in conjunction with HCBS funding. Explore and recommend how to recruit, train, and provide supports to families. b. Other housing funding streams will be explored in order to maximize the number of possibilities to meet housing needs. This may include state appropriations, county appropriations, or other funding to be used as rent subsidies, grants, low or no cost loans, etc. c. Increase the funding cap on funding for Home and Vehicle Modification through HCBS/MR which could make it easier for persons to use a variety of housing types. d. Add a Live In Care Giver option (for people who rent or own their own homes) to the HCBS/MR. This option allows for the rent/house payment and utilities to be split between the live in care giver and the consumer. e. Facilitating consumer home ownership.
Identified Barriers 1. Lack of affordable housing. 2. Lack of coordination among community entities in its development. 3. HCBS does not cover housing expenses, so other funds need to be used.
Training
GOAL 5: Community Capacity Building It is recognized that, in order to increase the rate of outplacement from the SHSs and to reduce the need for admissions into the SHSs, communities will have the capacity to provide supports for people who have differing needs than they have traditionally served. Affordable training must be available to assure that the community providers have this capacity.
Goal Statement: Community providers will have the capacity to provide the services and supports needed to assure that people can reside within their own communities and avoid the need for admission into a SHS.
A. A training plan will be developed which will include types of training needed and how the training can be organized, marketed, and funded. 1. By July 1996, the Division of MH/DD will establish a Training Consortium. This Consortium will include representatives of community
10

providers, consumers/families, counties, SHS staff and agencies who conduct statewide training such as the University Affiliated Program. The Consortium will develop a plan including types of training needed and the service delivery system. Some examples of the training that has been identified needed are: Consumers and guardians: Self Advocacy and Legal Advocacy. What to expect in the Community (explore use of parent to parent mentoring). Providers: How to View Behavior as Communication. "Specialized" services (e.g., autism, severe behaviors, sexual problems). Creative Funding. Ownership vs. Use of Regular Housing Issues, Essential Lifestyle Planning. Counties: Service Options, State of the Arts Information, Information and success stories from other counties in meeting individual needs, Essential Lifestyles Planning, Involving Consumers Effectively in County Planning, How to Build Housing Coalitions. 2. By September 1996, an initial timeline for implementation will be developed. Components of the training network will be implemented as appropriate, not waiting until the full program is designed. Identified Barriers The Consortium will identify barriers as they develop the training plan.
11

CONNER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Workgroup/Committees

Makeup

Dates

Responsibility

County/SHS

SHS staff, CPC staff, Convene: 4/96

SHS

Communications DHS workers, Case Product due: 9/96

Workgroup

Managers

Duties: • Identify what data, both individual and aggregate, will be useful to the CPCs, in what
format the data needs to be shared and how often (Goal 1,B) • Identify how best to include the input from the SHSs in county planning (Goal 1, B) • Identify how the SHSs will be included in the county planning processes and division
of duties related to discharge planning (Goal 3, C) • Continue to monitor and adjust the process when necessary

Make up

Dates

Responsibility

SHS Life Experience Committee

SHS staff

Convene: 9/96

SHS

Product due: 1/97

Duties: • Implement a plan for consumers to be able to visit different living options so a more
informed choice can be made when discharge becomes eminent. This would not be the same as visiting specific programs that are possible placements, but would be more generic visits, such as visiting friends who live in an apartment to get an idea of what apartment living is like. (Goal 2, A) • Funding and resource issues will be identified in the plan and submitted to the current SHS groups looking at funding options related to their futures planning (Goal 2, A)

Crisis Intervention Network Steering Committee

Make up

Dates

MH/DD, IUAP, SHS, Convene: 6/96

CPC

Product due: 9/96

Responsibility MH/DD

Duties: • They will look at who should be involved, how to organize the Network, and whether
planning should be on a regional basis. (Goal 3, D) • Develop an initial timeline for implementation. Components of the system/network
will be implemented as appropriate, not waiting until full program is designed. (Goal 3,D)

Make up

Dates

Responsibility

Funding Committee

MH/DD, Medical

Convene: 9/96

Services, SHS and Product due: 7/97

county representation

MH/DD

Duties: • Explore including training as an allowable cost under the MR waiver distinct from
Administration costs. (Goal 3, E). • Consider the following options and present a plan for implementation. (Goal 4, B)
a The use of family homes, including Family Life Homes, in conjunction with HCBS funding. Explore and recommend how to recruit, train, and provide supports to families.
b. Other housing funding streams will be explored in order to maximize the number of possibilities to meet housing needs. This may include State Supplemental Assistance, county appropriations, or other appropriations to be used as rent subsidies, grants, low or no cost loans, etc.
c. Increase the funding cap on funding for Home and Vehicle Modification through HCBS/MR which could make it easier for persons to use a variety of housing types.
d. Add a Live In Care Giver option (for people who rent or own their own homes) to the HCBS/MR. This option allows for the rent/house payment and utilities to be split between the live in care giver and the consumer.

e. Facilitating consumer home ownership.

Make up

Dates

Responsibility

Training Consortium

MH/DD; IUAP. SHS, Convene: 9/96

CPC, Community

Product due: 7/97

Providers. Consumers

MH/DD

Duties: • Develop a training plan which will include types of training needed and how the
training can be organized, marketed, and funded. (Goal 5, A) • Develop an initial timeline for implementation. Components of the training network
will be implemented as appropriate, not waiting until the full program is designed. (Goal 5, A)

 </s> Conner v. Branstad

MR-IA-001-006 Brief Summary Conner Decree Activities

3-5-97

State Hospital Schools:
Essential Lifestyle Plans (IPPs):
Each SHS has moved forward with using the ELP personal futures planning model for the IPPs. At both SHSs each resident's IPP is now so designed. In addition each SHS is sharing its ELP knowledge with community providers.
Behavioral consultant:
Contract signed with IUAP and in process of setting up to produce consultant's recommendations that can find indirect benefit to community settings whenever practicable without exceeding the limits of the settlement which apply the behavioral consultant's work to SHSs operations. Some time can be allocated to consult with the training consortium.
Admissions:
Admissions continue to be vigorously screened to deflect admissions and attach consulting to prevent SHS admissions. Placements out of the SHSs continue to include transition plans with follow-up consulting available and use of consulting required to exercise return placement guarantees demanded by community providers accepting placements. Each SHS also has done extensive community consultation for persons who have not been admitted.

Conner Plan Activities:
Several subgroups have been meeting and working since the Plan was created. The Plan Advisory Committee will be starting the annual plan revision process in March.
Goal: Information Sharing.
A process for sharing information between the SHSs, CPCs, and the various case managers has been developed and implemented. This included developing a release format and using the SHS data system to disseminate information to the case managers and CPCs. SHSs have also identified how they will be involved in the county planning process for residents served by the county. SHSs have also met in a work group of case managers and CPCs to set up how to involve the SHSs in the county planning process, and are taking steps to involve CPCs as practical members of the residents' interdisciplinary teams. The SHSs have also developed ongoing working relations with the SCM county

plan implementing arm called the SCAT team. A new step anticipates looking at ramifications of guardians who refuse to sign release forms.
Goal: Transition Process.
A workgroup is working on guidelines for planning consumer visits to various living options so a more informed choice can be made when discharge becomes imminent. Advisory group's recommendation to strengthen transition planning at the SHSs has been implemented. Funding issues for transition has been referred to the Funding Workgroup.
Goal: Community Services.
The Decree has been provided to each CPC and their input in the Plan development requested; including membership on the workgroups. A number of CPCs have responded and serve on the workgroups. CPCs are added to SHS Interdisciplinay Teams as they are released by clients to do so. They are therefore also involved in the Essential Lifestyles Planning (IPP) process, the community visitation process, discharge planning process, transition process, and preventive intervention and consultation process. Information and training given the CPCs on the ELP process may also be offered at CPC regional meetings and ISAC schools and ongoing open houses at the SHSs. A workgroup was convened to look at aggregate information on people residing at the SHSs which CPCs and other entities might need to help their planning process, and from that the CPCs did decide the current information was sufficient. SHSs will work with individual CPCs needing specific data as they request it.
Goal: Crisis Intervention.
A steering group was created to design the first steps to develop a planning process for intervening or preventing crises. The committee has begun its work and developed an initial timeline. The committee is now working on a plan for describing a crisis prevention and response network, which will include recommendations for funding and what parts could be implemented before full funding is acquired. This group is to coordinate and cooperate with other groups looking at the MR/DD service system, specifically the State/County Management Committee and its subgroup, the MR/DD System Committee.
Goal: Housing.
MH/DD Housing Specialist has communicated with all CPCs on basic information of affordable housing and technical assistance that is available; this has been in the form of memos, phone communications,

and articles in the Iowa County magazine. He also has met with the North Central CPC group, the NW group, and the South Central CPC group. Additional meetings and communications are planned. Several counties wanting assistance and information related to housing have been offered assistance with developing their housing development plans. The Divisions plan to create a workgroup to the MR/DD System Committee will also look at housing and will disseminate information concerning the new HCBS rent subsidy, coordinating with the Housing Specialist.

 </s> IOWA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES, INC.

Afederally-funded program to defend and promote the human and legal rights oflowans who have disabilities andmental illnesses.

Mervin L. Roth Executive Director

Mary Hayden, Ph.D. University of Minnesota Institute on Community Integration 214 Pattee Hall 150 Pillsbury Drive S.E. M i n n e a p o l i s , MN 55455

April 16, 1997 Conner v. Branstad

Re: Conner v. Branstad
Dear Dr. Hayden,

IIII I I III 11 I IIII IIII IIII II l | ||
MR-IA-001-007

In response to your request, I am enclosing information on the class action lawsuit, Conner v. Branstad, 839 F. Supp. 1346 (S.D. Iowa 1993), and the resulting Consent Decree approved December 2, 1994. Enclosed are copies of the original complaint, the Consent Decree, and the Order approving the Decree. To date, there has been no further court involvement.

During the ten years since the original complaint in the Conner case was filed, Iowa's two state hospital-schools have reduced their population by roughly half. Approximately 685 adults and children still reside at the two state facilities. Our ultimate goal is for the provision of far less restrictive community living options for those individuals as well as more integrated options for individuals currently residing in ICFs/MR and other congregate care facilities.

In our efforts to implement and enforce the provisions of the Conner Consent Decree, Iowa P & A has taken a cooperative approach, and, to the greatest extent possible, we are working with the Defendants--most directly with the Iowa Department of Human Services, Division of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities--toward the goal of developing community based services and supports for individuals with mental retardation and developmental disabilities, and providing them with meaningful lifestyle choices.

Beginning in 1995, a Conner Advisory Committee was convened, and after an extensive series of meetings, prepared a report with their recommendations for implementation of the Decree. Those recommendations were adopted by the DHS on March 12, 1996,as the "Plan for Community Development." A copy of the "5-Year" Plan, as it is referred to in Section 9 of the Decree, is enclosed.

Page l
3015 Merle HayRoad • Suite 6 • DesMoines, Iowa 50310-1270 Telephone Number: 515-278-2502 • Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539 • TTY515-278-0571 • E-Mail: HN5317@handsnet.org

Throughout the past year, several workgroups with memberships which include consumers, parents, advocates, providers, DHS specialists, and county services personnel have been examining implementation issues related to the goals identified in the Plan. I have also enclosed a copy of a "Plan for Community Development, 6 Month Update" report which outlines the on-going activities of those groups. The Conner Advisory Committee is currently meeting to develop a "second generation" Plan. That work product is due July 1, 1997.
As counsel of record for the Conner Plaintiffs, our staff attorney, Curt Sytsma, meets periodically with Defendants' counsel to discuss issues of concern regarding implementation, and to review progress being made. The final enclosure is a copy of the DHS summary of their "Conner Decree Activities" from our most recent meeting just last month.
In pressing for measurable progress in implementation, Mr. Sytsma has focused on Section 12 of the Decree and its requirement that the "Defendants shall use their best efforts to maximize the amount of federal and other sources of funding available for the development of community based services for class members. . . . Defendants shall use their best efforts to ensure that community based services are funded to the maximum extent feasible by Title XIX/Medicaid, particularly through the Home and Community Based Waiver and other government programs determined to be cost efficient. . ." (Decree at 39). We view these funding initiatives as an affirmative obligation on the part of the Conner Defendants, and as an effective enforcement tool which can be used to re-direct funding streams from institutions to individualized services—to make the dollars support the philosophy of customer designed services.
As an adjunct to the Conner Consent Decree activities, Iowa, like Minnesota, is one of the states receiving grant money from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation for a demonstration project for the development of self-determination opportunities for person with developmental disabilities. We firmly believe that the Conner lawsuit was an important impetus for many of the systemic changes which have occurred in our state and are reflected in Iowa's involvement with the RWJ grant.
Although changing political considerations both within Iowa and at the federal level make funding issues less than certain, we are actively advocating for expanded and more innovative uses of the HCBS Waiver to create real community options where they do not yet exist. And, while we recognize there remain serious political, fiscal, and pragmatic impediments to the rapid downsizing of a long-standing system of institutional care, we are hopeful that we have established within the disability
Page 2

services arena in Iowa, a shared vision of choice, empowerment, and community, and will, with hard work and vigilance, continue to move Iowa closer to that vision of full community integration.
Thank you for your interest. Please let us know when your article will be published. We look forward to reading it. Sincerely, Connie B. Fanselow Paralegal Advocate cbf/bjm enclosures
Page 3

 </s> PLAN FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6 MONTH UPDATE
State Hospital-School/County Relationship
GOAL 1: Information Sharing
Goal Statement: Develop and implement a clear and consistent process to share information between the state hospital schools, central point of coordination, ÐHS workers and Case Managers (both county and DHS) for the purposes of individual planning and services development.
A. Have information releases signed by all current residents by July 1996. 1. By March 1996, include information release forms in all admissions packets. These forms will allow the exchange of information between the SHSs and the person or entity designated by the county to implement their management plan.
Status: March: Release forms are now included in admissions packets.
Advisory Committee Recommendation: Action Step Completed
2. By July 1996, have releases signed by current residents.
Status: May: All guardians/families have been sent a release form to sign. As signed forms are returned, information is being sent to the CPC. Two more mailings have been sent to those that did not return the signed form the first time. Currently there are 16 releases still to be signed at GSHS and there are 27 still to be signed at WSHS. There have been several who have refused to sign.
Advisory Committee Recommendation: Action Step Completed. Replace with: Seek an opinion from the Attorney General's Office on the ramifications of guardians refusing to sign release forms and develop an action step to relieve this situation.
B. Identify information and information format needed by counties for planning purposes by Sept. 1996. 1. By May 1, 1996, convene a workgroup of SHS staff, county Central Point of Coordination (CPC) Administrator or designated staff, Case Managers and DHS service coordinators. This workgroup will identify what data, both individual and aggregate, will be useful to the CPCs, in what format

the data needs to be shared and how often. This workgroup should continue to monitor and adjust the process when necessary.
Status: Workgroup convened on April 30,1996. Workgroup consists of: Julie Jetter, Buchanan County Community Services Marty Engle Pratt, Page, Fremont, Taylor, MHS Coordinator Mary Hodapp, WSHS Larry Pezley, WSHS Frank Grim, AFSCME Deb Schildroth, Story County Case Management Audrey Dunn, Field Support, DHS Mark Finkelstein, MH/DD Diana Hoogestraat, GSHS Diane Diamond, DHS Case Management Carol Gutchewsky, Mills County DHS Janet Shoeman, MH/DD Pat Braesch, DHS Case Management Norm Bauer, Parent Association, WSHS Monica Murray, Pott. County, MHS Coordinator Carol Keune, Fayette County, Community Services Laren Bawn, SCAT, MH/DD
September: Committee has develop the communication process. See attached committee report.
Advisory Committee Recommendation: Action Step Completed. Begin dissemination of information.
2. The SHS data system will be modified to provide the information identified as needed according to the timeline set by the workgroup.
Status: The current data system is adequate for providing the recommended information, however, see attached committee report for recommendations to better communication.
Advisory Committee Recommendation: Action Step Completed. Recommendations will be submitted to the Division of MH/DD.
3. By July 1996, the SHS staff will be involved in county planning processes. The workgroup consisting of CPC Administrators (or designee) and SHS staff will work together to identify how best to include the input from the

SHSs. When the SHSs are aware of a county planning meeting, parents/guardian are notified of the meeting.
Status: May: SHS is in contact with SCAT. -SCAT will notify SHS of regional meetings. For regional or statewide meetings, CPCs may specifically request SHS staff to come and provide information when needed. See attached report by Communication Committee.
Advisory Committee Recommendation: Action Step Completed.
C. By Sept. 1996, identify information and information format needed by the SHS to coordinate discharge planning. 1. By March 1996, the SHSs will have a current list of all CPC Administrators and will be kept updated from then on.
Status: March: SHS have updated list of all CPC Administrators. The Div. of MH/DD will keep the SHSs updated.
Advisory Committee Recommendation: Action Step Completed.
2. By May 1996, convene a workgroup of SHS staff and county CPC Administrators (or designee), Case Managers and DHS service coordinators (see above). This workgroup will identify how the SHSs will be included in the county planning processes and division of duties related to discharge planning.
Status: Workgroup convened (see above)
Advisory Committee Recommendation: Action Step Completed.
3. The county CPC Administrator or their designee is considered part of the SHSs' Interdisciplinary Team for each person the county is responsible and will be included in the team process as releases are obtained.
Status: Completed - as signed release forms are returned.
Advisory Committee Recommendation: Action Step Completed.

GOAL 2: Transition Process
Goal Statement: Provide for a smooth transition for individuals who move from the State Hospital Schools to full community Life.
A. By January 1997, the SHSs will implement a plan for consumers to be able to visit different living options so a more informed choice can be made when discharge becomes eminent. This would not be the same as visiting specific programs that are possible placements, but would be more generic visits, such as visiting friends who live in an apartment to get an idea of what apartment living is like. This could be part of a life experience type of programming available.
1. By September 1996, a workgroup at each SHS will be formed to develop guidelines and procedures for this type of experience.
Status: Members are currently being identified, the workgroups will convene this month.
Advisory Committee Recommendation: Action Step Continued.
2. By January 1997, funding and resource issues will be identified in the plan and submitted to the current SHS groups looking at funding options related to their futures planning
Status: no action.
Advisory Committee Recommendation: Action Step Continued.
B. Transition Plan development will be strengthened. 1. Once a placement has been determined, a specific transition plan is developed based on the person's individual needs. Components of this transition plan may include (this is not meant to be an all inclusive list, but a list of examples): • visits to that site, either day visit or overnights. • visits to the day program, school, etc. • visits by the staff from that program to the SHS to spend time with the person and the direct care staff. • video tapes of the program, area, staff, roommates, etc. to help the person build familiarity.

• SHS could go with the resident and stay for a determined amount of time to assist in the transition.
• SHS will be available to the community placement for consultation whenever needed.
• the person may begin a job first (be transported) then move. By March 1996, the Social Workers and Treatment Program Managers at the SHSs will review transition plan development to be sure all are clear on what could be included in the transition plans.
Status: March: Completed
Advisory Committee Recommendation: Action Step Completed.
2. As funding and resource issues are identified they will be submitted to the current SHS groups looking at funding options related to their futures planning
Status: on going. A committee comprised of representative for each hospital-school has been looking at how Medicaid funds can be accessed to provide services outside of the ICF/MR rates. This group has presented information to the department.
Further ideas/problems related to funding issues will be brought to the Leadership Team at WSHS or Research and Development at GSHS.
Advisory Committee Recommendation: Action Step Replaced: The SHSs will present the information that was completed by the joint SHS committee to the Funding Workgroup. Further information as identified by the SHSs will also be brought to the Funding Workgroup.
3. By July 1996, transition plans will include how the parents/guardians will be "transitioned". This may include information dissemination, site visits, and active involvement by the parents/guardians in the process.
Status: Completed. Parents are included in the timeline of when activities need to be completed. Parents will be contacted to see if this is adequate or if further information is needed.
Advisory Committee Recommendation: Action Step Completed.

C. By July 1997, procedures will be recommended which cover resource and

\

funding issues involved in the transition process. The Division of MH/DD

will work with the current SHS groups looking at funding options related to

their futures planning on the following issues:

• When a person visits a proposed outplacement site and when

transitioning to a specific outplacement, who submits the per diem

claim? This is a problem when the visit requires significant

involvement by staff from both the SHS and the community

program. How can the funding be "shared"?

• funding for continued consultation once the person is discharged

from the SHS.

Status: Recommend this funding issue will be referred to the funding

workgroup, (see Goal 3, E.)

Consultation funding is included in the proposal referred to in Goal 2,

B, 2 above.

Advisory Committee Recommendation: Action Step Rewritten: replacing "The Division of MH/DD will work with the current SHS groups looking at funding options" with "These issues will be referred to the Funding Workgroup".

D. The information and training which are provided to the outplacement site will be strengthened. Currently training is given to the outplacement staff concerning any of the person's program information including OT, PT, any adaptive devices, communication systems, self-help program, behavior programs, etc. At times staff from the SHS travel to the outplacement site, at times the outplacement site staff travel to the SHS. 1. The question of funding for training, especially when it is extensive, will be submitted to the current SHS groups looking at funding options related to their futures planning.
Status: on going, (same as B2 above)
Advisory Committee Recommendation: Action Step Rewritten: replacing "be submitted to the current SHS groups looking at funding options" with "These issues will be referred to the Funding Workgroup".

2. By April 1996, when a placement is made, the team will put together a list of SHS contact people and contacts for support within the community and give to the provider.

Status: Completed. This is part of the discharge plan. The SHSs are looking at the possibility of documenting this in a different (bit more user friendly way).
Advisory Committee Recommendation: Action Step Completed.
Community Development of Services and Supports
GOAL 3: Community Services
Goal Statement: Service, supports and resources shall be developed, as needed, to assist consumers who wish to leave the SHSs to live, learn, work, and socialize in the community of their choice.
A.. By April 1, 1996, the state will provide counties with information on the Conner Decree. The counties will be encouraged to work cooperatively with each other in the development of needed services. Information may be presented at the ISAC Spring School in March 1996.
Status: A copy of the Plan was sent to all CPC Administrators (May 13, 1996). A memo was included requesting input into the process and asking for people interested in serving on committees.
See Communication Committees report for further information dissemination.
Advisory Committee Recommendation: Action Step Revised: By December 1996, the state will provide information on the Conner Decree at regional CPC meetings.
B. Counties will be involved in the Essential Lifestyle Plan for their people at the SHSs. This will occur as Release of Information forms are signed to allow this information exchange. 1. By April 1996, county CPC Administrators (or designee) will be considered part of the SHSs' Interdisciplinary Team and will receive notices of planning sessions as releases are signed.
Status: As information releases are obtained, CPC Administrators are added to the IDT.
Advisory Committee Recommendation: Action Step Completed.

2. As Information Release Forms are completed, CPC Administrators will receive the information packets on all of their residents who have already gone through the Essential Lifestyle planning.
Status: Completed
Advisory Committee Recommendation: Action Step Completed.
3. By April 1996, SHS will begin notifying CPC Administrators of the training times available at the SHSs in the Essential Lifestyle Planning. Basic information on the process and what is included in an Essential Lifestyle Plan will also be given to the CPC.
Status: Schedule of when ELP classes are occurring has been sent out by WSHS. Information ELP was presented at the open houses for CPCs that the two schools have held (and will continue to hold). Both SHSs have "short course" that they present at the SHSs and will look at presenting at CPC regional meetings and ISAC schools.
Advisory Committee Recommendation: Action Step Completed.
C. By September 1996, the state will develop and distribute aggregate information on people residing in the SHSs. This information will be particularly useful for the development of services for low incidence populations with specialized needs. In order to plan effectively, counties need to know with whom they need to coordinate. 1. By May 1996, develop a workgroup of SHS staff and county CPC Administrators (or their designees) (see Goal 1). This workgroup will identify what data in what format the data needs to be shared and how often. This workgroup should continue after Sept. 1996 to monitor and adjust the process when necessary
Status: Workgroup convened (see above) The workgroup recommended not routinely providing aggregate information. The CPC Administrators felt that they could gather that information themselves from the information they have. However, the SHS will work with any county that wishes to have aggregate information. The SHS is also looking at the possibility of using a data system (CAP-R) that may be able to be used at the aggregate level.
Advisory Committee Recommendation: Action Step Completed.
8

D. A Crisis Intervention Plan or Network will be designed and implemented. This network could be either a private agency network, a network supported by the SHSs or a combination of the two. This plan should include how to fund the service and how to make it geographically accessible. This plan should include exploring the addition of crisis intervention as a HCB service under the MR waiver. 1. By June 1996, a steering committee will be put together. This committee will design the first steps of the development of the planning process. They will look at who should be involved, how to organize the Network, and whether planning should be on a regional basis.
Status: Committee formed, first meeting, June 26,1996. Committee consists of:
Min Ameniya, parent Deb Johnson, DHS/HCBS Gary Gesaman, DHS/Medical Services Jack Hillyard, CEO Frank Grim AFSCME John Kuster, ResCare Russell Wood, SCAT Robert Tilden, Boone CPC Mark Finkelstein, DHS/MH/DD Angie Crowder, WSHS Ann Thorson-Aller, WSHS Marilyn Preen, GSHS Ken Forney, GSHS Audrey Dunn, DHS/ OFS Sondra Kaska, P & A Bob Bacon, IUAP Janet Shoeman, DHS/MH/DD Jan Newmann, Allamakee CPC
Ideal system description developed, timeline for workgroup completed (see committee report)
Advisory Committee Recommendation: Action Step Completed.
2. By September 1996, an initial timeline for implementation will be developed. Components of the system/network will be implemented as appropriate, not waiting until full program is designed.
Status: Committee formed, work begun, (see attached)

Advisory Committee Recommendation:

f

Action Step Completed. Replace with: By May 1997, the Crisis

Prevention and Response workgroup will complete a plan for

implementation of a Crisis Prevention and Response Network including

recommendations for funding. Components of the system/network will

be implemented as appropriate, not waiting until full program is

designed.

E. Training costs will be made an allowable cost within the service rate under the MR waiver distinct from Administration costs. 1. By September 1996, the Division will put together a workgroup in cooperation with the Division of Medical Services, SHS staff and county representation to develop this process.
Status: The State/County Management Committee has a legislative charge to look at funding issues related to the MR/DD service system. There is a workgroup, whose original charge was to look at making changes in the Home and Community Based waiver for people with Mental Retardation. This workgroup's charge has now been expanded to look at the entire MR/DD system and will report to the State County Management Committee. In order not to duplicate initiatives, a subcommittee of the MR/DD System Committee will be formed to research the specific questions presented in the Plan for Community Development. This will also provide an avenue for approval and implementation of recommendations.
Advisory Committee Recommendation: Action Step Revised: By October 1996, the Division will put together a subcommittee of the MR/DD System Committee to develop specific recommendations to be brought the larger group.

2. Regulation for community providers needs to be consistent with the philosophies presented in this plan. This includes Purchase of Service and Department of Inspections and Appeals regulations as well as standards under the purview of the MH/DD Division.
Status: In 1994—as part of Iowa Senate File 2311--Iowa impaneled a task force which includes family members of persons with developmental disabilities, community-based providers, advocates, and state agency personnel to study outcome-based performance standards for programs serving persons with mental retardation. These agencies and departments have agreed to work together to develop these standards.

10

This task force set out to develop standards that provide a more responsive system to consumers and their families/guardians. Standards which are understandable to a lay audience and which foster the development of integrated, easily-accessible services. This system focuses on organizational and consumer outcomes. It provides flexibility to agencies, allowing them to design their programs to achieve consumer-focused outcomes rather than process measures imposed by licensing requirements.
This system also focuses the efforts of state regulatory agencies in a collaborated system that would reduce costly duplication of effort and allow them to share responsibility and expertise. This revised monitoring system would eliminate costly multiple reviews within agencies and replace these with one coordinated visit; reduce costs of multiple applications for licenses by an agency; reduce costs of administrative, paperwork and oversight within agencies; and potentially reduce duplication of services within agencies.
The accreditation process used by this focus group was based on the Massachusetts model and was field tested in January 1996 by the staff of the Home and Community Based Waiver. It includes interviews with consumers and other important people in the consumer's life, with both the outcome and the supports necessary to obtain that outcome needing to be present in order for the provider to receive accreditation.
The focus group is now looking at piloting these rules. They were in the process of developing a proposal to submit to the legislature when the RFP for the Self-Determination Project from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation came out. The focus group decided to become part of this project, integrating the work they have completed on the standards with the other initiatives. The application for the Self-Determination Project was submitted in July 1996.
Advisory Committee Recommendation: Action Step Continued: need to also look at alternatives to RWJF grant.
Outcome based standards and funding by services instead of service packages needs to be instituted. Accrediting by outcomes and by services will promote the type of development needed for community supports. The proposed Outcome-based Standards Pilot Project should assist in this process.
Status: see above.
Advisory Committee Recommendation: Action Step Continued: need to also look at alternatives to RWJF grant.
11

Goal 4: Community Housing
Goal Statement: Consumers have safe, affordable homes available in the community of their choice. Housing should not be determined by a service package.
A Information on methods to develop affordable housing will be available to CPC Administrators. 1. Beginning in July 1996 and ongoing, counties will be offered information related to steps of developing affordable housing. This information will focus on organization, planning, development, and management. Counties will be encouraged to facilitate the development of broad based local coalitions that have the common interest of developing affordable housing opportunities.
Status: June: memo sent to all CPCs from Jim Chesnik, MH/DD Housing Specialist giving basic information of affordable housing and that more information and technical assistance will be available. There has been two articles in the Iowa County magazine on housing issues. (July and August issues).
The Housing Specialist meet with the North-central CPC group, with Henry, Louisa, Lee, Des Moines counties, NW CPC group and SouthCentral CPC group will meet in Oct.
Advisory Committee Recommendation: Action Step Continued: Look at possibility of presenting at ISAC Spring School. Meet with the other CPC groups. Have information available through The Clearinghouse.
2. Counties wanting technical assistance will be provided with methods to develop Strategic Housing Development Plans.
Status: Three counties have asked for assistance or information related to housing
Advisory Committee Recommendation: Action Step Continued. Provide TA to the counties identified by the DD Council in their Customer Designed Services Project.
B. An important part of Housing Development Plans comprises ways that communities can facilitate access to a variety of housing options. In order to accomplish this:
12

1. By September 1996, the Division will put together a workgroup in cooperation with the Division of Medical Services, SHS staff and county representation. This workgroup will consider the following options and present a plan for implementation by July 1997: a The use of family homes, including Family Life Homes, in conjunction with HCBS funding. Explore and recommend how to recruit, train, and provide supports to families. b. Other housing funding streams will be explored in order to maximize the number of possibilities to meet housing needs. This may include state appropriations, county appropriations, or other funding to be used as rent subsidies, grants, low or no cost loans, etc. c. Increase the funding cap on funding for Home and Vehicle Modification through HCBS/MR which could make it easier for persons to use a variety of housing types. d. Add a Live In Care Giver option (for people who rent or own their own homes) to the HCBS/MR. This option allows for the rent/house payment and utilities to be split between the live in care giver and the consumer. e. Facilitating consumer home ownership.
Status: The State/County Management Committee has a legislative charge to look at funding issues related to the MR/DD service system. There is also a MR/DD Systems workgroup. In order not to duplicate initiatives, the MR/DD Systems workgroup will report to the S/CMC. A subcommittee of the MR/DD System Committee will be formed to research the specific questions presented in this plan.
Advisory Committee Recommendation: Action Step Continued: revise by replacing the Division putting together a workgroup with the Division will put together a subcommittee of the MR/DD System Committee. Also recommends that information concerning the new HCBS rent subsidy be disseminated.
Training
GOAL 5: Community Capacity Building
Goal Statement: Community will have the capacity to provide the services and supports needed to assure that people can reside within their own communities and avoid the need for admission into a SHS.
A. A training plan will be developed which will include types of training needed and how the training can be organized, marketed, and funded.
13

1. By July 1996, the Division of MH/DD will establish a Training Consortium. This Consortium will include representatives of community providers, consumers/families, counties, SHS staff and agencies who conduct statewide training such as the University Affiliated Program. The Consortium will develop a plan including types of training needed and the service delivery system.
Status: May: The training consortium reconvened on May 15, 1996. Committee consists of:
Mike Davis, WSHS Bob Bacon, IUAP Mike Hoenig, IUAP Murlean Hall, DD Council David Leshtz, IUAP Barb Smith, IUAP Norm Bauer, parent Linda Hinton, IARRF Frank Grim, AFSCME Sondra Kaska, P & A Connie Faneslow, P & A Ralph Childers, DVRS Gerry Gritzmacher, Dept. of Ed. Keith Ruff, Evert Conner Center Pat Ellis, On With Life Cherie Clark, consumer representative Janet Shoeman, DHS/MH/DD Lori Kool, Mahaska County Holli Noble, SCAT Susan Simon, Kirkwood Community College
See attached report for initial work. Advisory Committee Recommendation: Action Step Continued.
2. By September 1996, an initial timeline for implementation will be developed. Components of the training network will be implemented as appropriate, not waiting until the full program is designed.
Status: see attached
Advisory Committee Recommendation: Action Step Continued.
14

EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION: A STATE HOSPITAL SCHOOL/COUNTY PARTNERSHIP
I. Introduction/background In March 1996, the Department of Human Services completed a Plan for Community Development. This plan was developed in response to the Conner Decree. Within this plan, three main areas were identified. The first deals with the relationship between the counties and the State Hospital Schools (SHSs), the second deals with assisting community development of needed services, and the third deals with the training needs of the community.
This report presents a process for building a more effective relationship between the counties and the SHSs. County governments, through the development of thencounty management plans, have the responsibility for planning for the development of services for people with mental retardation. With this expectation in place, a clear and consistent process for sharing information between the state hospital schools and the counties is essential. Information on individuals residing at the hospital schools needs to be available to the county's Central Point of Coordination (CPC) in order for them to plan for the individual's future service needs.
In April 1996, a workgroup was convened to assist in organizing this county/SHS relationship. The workgroup consisted of:
Julie Jetter, Buchanan County Community Services Marty Engle Pratt, Page, Fremont, Taylor, MHS Coordinator Mary Hodapp, WSHS Larry Pezley, WSHS Frank Grim, AFSCME Deb Schildroth, Story County Case Management Audrey Dunn, Field Support, DHS Mark Finkelstein, MH/DD Diana Hoogestraat, GSHS Diane Diamond, DHS Case Management Carol Gutchewsky, Mills County DHS Janet Shoeman, MH/DD Pat Braesch, DHS Case Management Norm Bauer, Parent Association, WSHS Monica Murray, Pott. County, MHS Coordinator Carol Keune, Fayette County, Community Services Loren Bawn, SCAT, MH/DD
Rather than waiting for the report to be completed, some activities related to this information process were implemented when identified by the workgroup. These activities were initiated by the State Hospital School staff and included sending out needed information releases, and, as releases came in, current staffing reports and face sheets.

II. Building Relationships The first step in setting up a communication system is getting to know each other. Both hospital-schools have hosted open houses for CPC Administrators. Glenwood's first open house was on June 6,1996. Thirty people attended, consisting of CPCs, Board members, and several area SCAT members. Guests were given an overview of Glenwood's services and given a chance to ask questions. Tours were also offered. Each of the guests were asked to fill out evaluations and the comments were excellent. Another open house is scheduled for September 25,1996.
The first open house at Woodward was on July 16,1996. Thirty-six people came representing 17 counties, SCAT members, DHS Des Moines and the House Republican staff. The changes in WSHS services were highlighted and tours were given. Presentations were also given on Time Limited Assessment, Respite Services, Assistive Technology, Autism and Essential Lifestyle Planning. The next open houses are scheduled for October 9th and 23rd.
III. Information Exchange Process A. Format for Information Exchange on Individuals The SHS staff and the county staff will work together as a team in dividing and designating duties. The consumer is always the center of this process and the process is flexible to meet the individual needs of the consumer.
There are main contacts designated concerning information exchange. The main contacts are:
WSHS - Mary Hodapp, 515/438-2600 GSHS - Diana Hoogestraat, 712-527-4811 Each County - the designated CPC Administrator (list attached)
The process should start at this main contact level but then may be delegated depending on the needs of the situation. An example would be: Initial contact with the county concerning a specific individual would be between Mary or Diana and the county CPC. The CPC may then designate a specific case manager to a consumer. At that consumer's staffing, the case manager would then begin dealing directly with the SHS social worker also assigned to that consumer.
The involvement of the local Department of Human Services social workers and Targeted Case Management will be determined jointly by the CPC and the SHS staff.
1. CPC Administrator Responsibilities • CPC Application: The application forms are the responsibility of the CPC or designee. This could be done at the time of the consumer's annual staffings.

• CPC or designee will be involved in the Essential Lifestyle Planning and IPP process at the SHSs for their consumers.
2. State Hospital-Schools Responsibilities • Releases were sent out in March to all consumers/guardians allowing the CPC Administrator to receive information concerning their consumers at the SHSs and to be involved in the consumer's individual planning process. Further mailings have occurred for those that did not respond to the first mailing. Personal contacts have been made to try and get 100% of the releases signed. There are a very small number of guardians who have refused to sign, (see section IV.) • Basic information was needed immediately by the CPCs about their consumers at the SHSs. The SHSs each have file face sheets. These face sheets were mailed in June to the CPCs for each of their consumers. A cover letter was included explaining that this information should cover the basic information the CPCs need to set up their data base. This sheet also lets the CPC know what month the staffing will be scheduled and a statement saying that they will be sent the exact date a month prior to the staffing. In re-scheduling staffings, parents/guardians schedules are given first priority, but SHS staff will try to work with CPCs. • SHSs are sending copies of current staffing reports to CPCs as releases are signed and routinely there after. • SHS will continue to evaluate the use of a reporting form to use with the Essential Life Style Planning information.. • Guardianship Issues: guardians are included on the face sheet. If a person does not have a guardian, and may need one, SHS staff will share information with the CPC on what has been tried, who has been contacted, etc. This will occur at the annual staffing or upon individual request from the CPC.
3. Individual/and Family Responsibilities • Full involvement in staffing and Essential Life Style Plan • Sign releases to allow information to be exchanged with CPC

B. Discharge Planning

The CPC and the SHS will work closely together on discharge planning. The

counties have the main responsibility to plan for all their consumers including

those at the SHSs. They will be involved in the annual staffings at the SHS and

therefore they should be aware of when outplacement is being discussed. The

CPC should be the center of this process, however, the specific duties may be

designated based on the individual needs in each situation. The CPC

Administrator may delegate these functions as determined by each county's

management plan.

¯

Individual needs identified through this process are the basis for all referral of service providers to visit people residing at the hospital-schools for possible placement. All referrals should have the approval of the CPC.
1. CPC Administrator Responsibilities • Communication with family: The CPC or designee should be the coordinator of the discharge planning, working closely with the consumer, their family and the SHS staff. • It is the CPC or designee that has initial contact with potential providers when out placement is being discussed.
2. State Hospital-Schools Responsibilities • SHS staff will work closely with CPCs on discharge planning. Provide CPC with information on likely providers (ones who could meet the needs/wants of the consumer). • All referrals for out placement must go through the CPC. • Communication with family: It is the SHSs responsibility to communicate the treatment and daily activities information to the family. • Central responsibility for designing transition plan. Once a provider has been established through the county CPC, contact should be direct from SHS to provider to plan and carry out the transition plan.
3. Individual/and Family Responsibilities • Fully involved in discharge planning • Fully involved in designing transition plans
C. State Cases Discharge Planning The SHS staff will have central responsibility for discharge planning for residents who do not have a county of legal settlement. Once the consumer's future residence has been identified, who will assist with future planning will be determined. The SHS staff will approach the county of residence and ask if they would assume this future planning responsibility. If the county of residence chooses not to be responsible for this planning process, DHS service workers in that county will assume that roll. Some counties, though they are not the county of legal settlement, have historical ties and have maintained involvement with a consumer. In this situation, that county may also be approached and asked if they would be responsible for the planning for that consumer. Neither the county of residence nor a county that has historical involvement with a consumer without legal settlement is obligated to take responsibility but may choose to do so.

*•• •

1. CPC Administrator Responsibilities • If they choose to do so, take over planning responsibility for a consumer moving from the SHS into their county. A county with historical involvement with a consumer, though not the county of legal settlement or residence may also choose to take the planning responsibility.
2. State Hospital-Schools Responsibilities • Has responsibility of outplacement activities, including contacts with parents/guardians and potential providers. • Will contact CPC Administrators in potential counties to ask if they choose to take the planning responsibility for the consumer.
D. Aggregate Information The workgroup discussed different possibilities for use of aggregate data. The committee did not feel that a regular exchange of aggregate data on the county's consumers at the SHSs would be needed. This information could be obtained by the CPC by reviewing the face sheets and the IPP packages. If a county would like to do an overall planning process using aggregate infonnation, they may work individually with the SHSs. At that time specific questions or concerns would be identified by the county, so SHS could gather the appropriate information to address their needs.
E. Involvement of SHS in County Management Plans The SHSs can be a great resource for counties in their planning processes. The staff at the SHSs have had many years of experience working in developing needed supports for people with disabilities in the community. The SHSs will not automatically be involved in all county planning processes. However, CPCs should still have a way they can access the SHSs for planning assistance. The CPCs currently have the capacity to set up regional meetings with the assistance of their State/County Assistance Team member. This could be a more workable vehicle for SHS involvement.
1. CPC Administrator Responsibilities • Work with SCAT to notify the SHSs of regional (or statewide) meetings and provide agendas if possible, (place SHSs on mailing list) • If there are specific questions or assistance needed, notify the SHS to get them on the agenda. If there are areas you will be discussing that you would like their input on, notify them that you would like them to be there.
2. State Hospital-Schools Responsibilities • Have staff available to attended regional (or statewide) meetings if requested. Diana and Mary will make presentations. Their first

presentation was September 9, 1996, in the SE area of the state. This was very successful and more will be scheduled for other areas. Monitor agendas of regional meetings and attend if there is a topic of interest to the SHS. Offer meeting space for CPC regional meetings or other CPC meetings. Hold periodic open houses to provide information
F. System Needs for Better Communication Recommendations: 1. In order to keep open communication, the CPC Administrators, the SHSs and DHS Central Office should have a readily accessible communication system. a. . Explore the possibility of the CPCs having access to the DHS Office Vision and shared file system through DHS local offices. b. Increase the access at the SHSs to the DHS Office Vision and shared file system c. Explore the possibility of email communication.
2. State Hospital Schools • the SHS computers should have networking ability within the SHS • As needed information is identified, modifications may be required in the SHS data system
IV. Other Recommendations/workgroup activities A. SHS Admissions The fact that current admissions procedures did not include the CPC in the admissions process was discussed at a workgroup meeting. Several members of this workgroup are also members of the Residential Technical Assistance Team (RTAT), which is the group that reviews SHS admissions. They brought this to the attention of RTAT who rewrote the procedures to include the CPC.
B. Universal Release Form The department is developing a "universal" release form that could be used by either the department or the counties. This form would allow for the mutual exchange of information needed to assure a coordinated planning process. This workgroup reviewed this form and made comments/suggestions to the department.
C. Unsigned SHS/CPC Release Forms There are few guardians that have refused to sign a release form for the SHS to provide information to the CPC. The workgroup recommends that a legal opinion on the ramifications of this refusal be obtained and directions/information be shared with guardians and CPCs.

D. State Cases It was evident during discussions on state cases that there is great confusion on who to contact, about what, and when. The workgroup recommends that this process be solidified by DHS and communicated to-the CPCs, Case Managers, and DHS field staff (see section II, C).
E. Other Communication Difficulties While discussion the communication process with the SHSs, it became apparent that there are other areas where communication has been lacking. The workgroup identified the state case procedures and the changes in the Home and Community Based waiver as two areas of great confusion. The workgroup suggests that information on these areas also be brought to regional meetings (see section IV. Education/information Dissemination)
IV. Education/information Dissemination A. The workgroup identified that information on the following areas needs to be disseminated: • the communication procedure outlined in this report • other aspects of the Conner Decree including =í> general overview of decree => information and feedback for other "Conner's Committees" • training and information on "state case" procedures • training and information on changes in the Home and Community Based waiver program
B. Regional Meetings The workgroup believes that the information on the Conner Decree and the information exchange process needs to get out as soon as possible. The workgroup has designed a format for presenting the information exchange process (see attached). It may be necessary to cover this information first and follow up later with the information on the state case process and waiver changes.
The workgroup members will assist as hosts for the meeting in their area. The workgroup will work closely with the State/County Assistance Team (SCAT) in setting up these sessions. At these regional meetings, it would be decided how the state case and waiver information will be disseminated to all who need the information. It is recognized that providing the training to CPCs, Case Managers and DHS field staff at the same time not only provides consistent information but could also provide an opportunity to work together as a team. If a process of shared information/training could be developed in the regions, many different topics could be dealt with effectively on a continuing basis.

Informational Letters

f

An informational letter concerning the Conner Decree and the Information

Exchange process will be mailed to all Title 19 Case Management offices and

DHS field offices. The information will also be reviewed with the DHS case

managers at one of their monthly conference calls. ISAC Case Management will

be approached to see if they would like further assistance.

V. Future of Communications Workgroup The Communications Workgroup will meet agam in January 1997 to review the implementation of the communication process. The Workgroup will then meet every six months. The workgroup recognizes that clear communication between, CPC, Case Management, and DHS (both field, central office and SHSs) is vital. This does not just encompass the SHS - CPC communication process, but many other areas as well.
Recommended Duties: • assist in hosting regional trainings and disseminating the developed information • identifying process difficulties in the designed procedures and recommend needed changes • be contact people for others to bring communication issues or problems to that they would like the workgroup to deal with • be available as a sounding board for issues

FORMAT FOR INFORMATION EXCHANGE ON INDIVIDUALS RESIDING AT A STATE HOSPITAL SCHOOL

The SHS staff and the county staff will work together as a team in dividing and designating duties. The consumer is always the center of this process and the process is flexible to meet the individual needs of the consumer.

MAIN CONTACTS

Counties CPC Administrator (see attached list)

Hospital-Schools GSHS - Diana Hoogestraat
712-527-4811 WSHS-MaryHodapp
515/438-2600

The process should start at this main contact level but then may be delegated depending on the needs of the situation. An example would be: Initial contact with the county concerning a specific individual would be between Mary or Diana and the county CPC. The CPC then may designate a specific case manager to a consumer. At that consumer's staffing, the case manager would then begin dealing directly with the SHS social worker also assigned to that consumer.

The involvement of the local Department of Human Services social workers and Targeted Case Management will be determined jointly by the CPC and the SHS staff.

RESPONSIBILITIES

CPC Administrator (or designee^ CPC Application. Involvement in the Essential
Lifestyle Planning and IPP process at the SHSs for their consumers

Hospital-Schools Have releases signed by
consumers/guardians allowing CPC to receive information and be part of the planning process Provide CPC with staffing information

o
DISCíiARGE PLANNING

The CPC and the SHS will work closely together on discharge planning. The counties have the main responsibility to plan for all their consumers including those at the SHSs. They will be involved in the annual staffings at the SHS and therefore they should be aware of when outplacement is being discussed. The CPC should be the center of this process, however, the specific duties may be designated based on the individual needs in each situation. The CPC Administrator may delegate these functions as determined by each county's management plan.
Individual needs identified through this process are the basis for all referral of service providers to visit people residing at the hospital-schools for possible placement. All referrals should have the approval of the CPC.

RESPONSIBILITIES

CPC Administrator (or designee) Communication with family:
CPC is the center of the discharge planning Initial contact with potential providers Keep SHS informed on all discharge planning activity

Hospital-Schools Communication with family:
SHSs communicate the treatment and daily activities information Provide CPC with information on likely providers All referrals for outplacement must go through the CPC Responsible for transition plan - to enable smooth movement from SHS to the community

STATE CASES

The SHS staff will have central responsibility for discharge planning for residents who do not have a county of legal settlement. Once the consumer's future residence has been identified, who will assist with future planning will be determined. The SHS staff will approach the county of residence and ask if they would assume this future planning responsibility. If the county of residence chooses not to be responsible for this planning process, DHS service workers in that county will assume that roll. Some counties, though they are not the county of legal settlement, have historical ties and have maintained involvement with a consumer. In this situation, that county may also be approached and asked if they would be responsible for the planning for that consumer. Neither the county of residence nor a county that has historical involvement with a consumer without legal settlement is obligated to take responsibility but may choose to do so.

RESPONSIBILITIES

CPC Administrator (or designee) If they choose to do so, take over
planning responsibility for a consumer moving into their county, or a consumer they have had historical ties to.

Hospital-Schools Responsible for discharge planning,
including contacts with families and providers Will contact potential counties to ask if they wish to be involved Refer to DHS service worker in county of residence if needed

INVOLVEMENT OF SHS IN COUNTY MANAGEMENT PLANS

The SHSs can be a great resource for counties in their planning processes. The staff at the SHSs have had many years of experience working in developing needed supports for people with disabilities in the community. The SHSs will not automatically be involved in all county planning processes. However, CPCs should still have a way they can access the SHSs for planning assistance. The CPCs currently have the capacity to set up regional meetings with the assistance of their State/County Assistance Team member. This could be a more workable vehicle for SHS involvement.

RESPONSIBILITIES

CPC Administrator (or designee) Place SHS on mailing list - notify of

Hospital-Schools Have staff available to attend if

C

regional or statewide meetings

requested

Contact Mary or Diana if there are

Monitor agendas of regional or

specific questions or assistance

statewide meetings and attend

need

if need/wanted

Offer meeting space at SHS

Hold periodic open houses

 </s> CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:iasd - Docket Report

Page 1 of 29

U.S. District Court Southern District of Iowa (Central) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:86-cv-90871-MWB

TERMED

Conner, et al v. Reagen, et al Assigned to: Honorable Mark W. Bennett Demand: $0 Case in other court: 86-00871-S Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff
Evert Conner

Date Filed: 12/08/1986 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Carroll L Lucht BOX 401A YALE STATION NEW HAVEN, CT 06520 TERMINATED: 07/14/1992 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curt L Sytsma Legal Center for Special Education 317 E. 6th Street Des Moines, IA 50309 515 309 0033 Fax: 515 309 0035 Email: tlciowa@mcleodusa.net TERMINATED: 04/04/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard A Pundt 330 1ST ST SE CEDAR RAPIDS, IA 52401-1702 Fax: 3193648613 TERMINATED: 03/28/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sondra B Kaska 103 E COLLEGE SUITE 300 IOWA CITY, IA 52240 TERMINATED: 11/13/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Linda M Levey

https://ecf.iasd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?866891946007347-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:iasd - Docket Report

Page 2 of 29

Plaintiff Pauline Crouse
Plaintiff Michael Monahan

LEVEY LAW OFFICE 118 SOUTH CLINTON ST STE 250 IOWA CITY, IA 52240 319 341 2226 Fax: 319 341 2226 Email: leveylaw@aol.com
represented by Carroll L Lucht (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/14/1992 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curt L Sytsma (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/04/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard A Pundt (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/28/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald White YALE LAW SCHOOL 401A YALE STATION NEW HAVEN, CT 06520 203/432-4800 TERMINATED: 10/27/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sondra B Kaska (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Linda M Levey (See above for address)
represented by Carroll L Lucht (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/14/1992 LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.iasd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?866891946007347-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:iasd - Docket Report

Page 3 of 29

Plaintiff Amanda Poulos

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curt L Sytsma (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/04/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard A Pundt (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/28/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald White (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/27/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sondra B Kaska (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Linda M Levey (See above for address)
represented by Carroll L Lucht (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/14/1992 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curt L Sytsma (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/04/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard A Pundt (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/28/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald White (See above for address)

https://ecf.iasd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?866891946007347-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:iasd - Docket Report

Page 4 of 29

Plaintiff Archie Pratt
Plaintiff Pamela Schuler

TERMINATED: 10/27/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sondra B Kaska (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Linda M Levey (See above for address)
represented by Carroll L Lucht (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/14/1992 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curt L Sytsma (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/04/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard A Pundt (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/28/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald White (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/27/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sondra B Kaska (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Linda M Levey (See above for address)
represented by Carroll L Lucht (See above for address)

https://ecf.iasd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?866891946007347-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:iasd - Docket Report

Page 5 of 29

Plaintiff Jenalee Sturtz

TERMINATED: 07/14/1992 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curt L Sytsma (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/04/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard A Pundt (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/28/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald White (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/27/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sondra B Kaska (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Linda M Levey (See above for address)
represented by Carroll L Lucht (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/14/1992 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curt L Sytsma (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/04/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard A Pundt (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/28/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.iasd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?866891946007347-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:iasd - Docket Report

Page 6 of 29

Plaintiff
Iowa Protection and Advocacy Services, Inc.

Ronald White (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/27/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sondra B Kaska (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Linda M Levey (See above for address)
represented by Carroll L Lucht (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/14/1992 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curt L Sytsma (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/04/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard A Pundt (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/28/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald White (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/27/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sondra B Kaska (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Suzie A Berregaard IA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES INC 3015 MERLE HAY RD

https://ecf.iasd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?866891946007347-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:iasd - Docket Report

Page 7 of 29

V. Defendant Michael V. Reagen
Defendant Charles M Palmer
Defendant Larry Jackson
Defendant Michael Davis
Defendant

STE 6 DES MOINES, IA 50310-1270 Fax: 5152780539 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Linda M Levey (See above for address)
Sreenu P Raju Law Offices of Sreenu P. Raju, Esq. PO BOX 65861 WEST DES MOINES, IA 50265 515 988 0937 Fax: 501 639 9138 Email: sreenuraju@mchsi.com
represented by Gordon E Allen Department of Justice Hoover State Office Building Second Floor Des Moines, IA 50319 515 281 4419 Fax: 281 4209 Email: gallen@ag.state.ia.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gordon E Allen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gordon E Allen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gordon E Allen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.iasd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?866891946007347-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:iasd - Docket Report

Page 8 of 29

William E Campbell
Defendant Terry E Branstad
Defendant Sandra Scott
Defendant Jeanne Nesbit
V. Intervenor Defendant John Noel parent of Lance Noel
Intervenor Defendant Russ Finken parent of Seth J. Finken

represented by Gordon E Allen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gordon E Allen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gordon E Allen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gordon E Allen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Betty Buitenwerf 4320 NW SECOND DES MOINES, IA 50313 515/246-1517 TERMINATED: 10/06/1994 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael E Hansen 4320 NW SECOND DES MOINES, IA 50313 515/246-1517 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Betty Buitenwerf (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/06/1994 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael E Hansen

https://ecf.iasd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?866891946007347-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:iasd - Docket Report

Page 9 of 29

Intervenor Defendant Sybil Finken parent of Seth J. Finken Intervenor Defendant Rita Wharnell legal guardian of Stephen Hughes
Intervenor Defendant Gloria Hucke parent of Duane Hucke
Intervenor Defendant Bill Hoff parent of Tom Hoff
Intervenor Defendant Jan Hoff parent of Tom Hoff

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michael E Hansen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Betty Buitenwerf (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/06/1994 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael E Hansen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Betty Buitenwerf (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/06/1994 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael E Hansen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Betty Buitenwerf (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/06/1994 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael E Hansen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michael E Hansen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.iasd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?866891946007347-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:iasd - Docket Report

Page 10 of 29

Intervenor Defendant Evelyn Noel parent of Lance Noel
Intervenor Defendant Minoru Amemiya parent of Michael M. Amemiya
Intervenor Defendant Marjorie Stonecypher parent of James Lechner
Intervenor Defendant Kaylyn J Bauer legal guardian of Robert L. Russell

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Betty Buitenwerf (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/06/1994 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael E Hansen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Betty Buitenwerf (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/06/1994 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael E Hansen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Betty Buitenwerf (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/06/1994 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael E Hansen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Betty Buitenwerf (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/06/1994 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael E Hansen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.iasd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?866891946007347-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:iasd - Docket Report

Page 11 of 29

Intervenor Defendant Avanell Baker parent of Craig Wheeler
Intervenor Defendant Glenwood State Hospital School Parent-Family Association
Intervenor Defendant Woodward State Hospital School Parent Association
Intervenor Defendant American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees/Iowa Council 61

represented by Betty Buitenwerf (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/06/1994 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael E Hansen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Betty Buitenwerf (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/06/1994 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael E Hansen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Betty Buitenwerf (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/06/1994 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael E Hansen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Betty Buitenwerf (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/06/1994 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael E Hansen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.iasd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?866891946007347-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:iasd - Docket Report

Page 12 of 29

Date Filed 10/27/2003 04/04/2003 03/28/2003
02/10/2003 07/07/1997 11/13/1995
09/22/1995 09/22/1995 09/21/1995 09/11/1995 12/22/1994 12/16/1994 12/09/1994 12/09/1994

#

Docket Text

304 MAIL Returned Ronald White (Yale Refused) *Order sent out on 4/07/03 and return on 10/27/03 [303-1] (don) (Entered: 10/27/2003)

303 MOTION by plaintiff to withdraw attorney and ORDER granting motion [303-1] attorney CURT L SYTSMA witdrawn as counsel for plaintiffs. /s/JRR, Clerk (cc: all counsel) (ld) (Entered: 04/04/2003)

302 MOTION by plaintiff Ia Protection Adv to withdraw attorney and ORDER granting order motion [302-1] attorney RICHARD A PUNDT for Evert Conner, for Pauline Crouse, for Michael Monahan, for Amanda Poulos, for Archie Pratt, for Pamela Schuler, for Jenalee Sturtz, and for Ia Protection Adv (cc: all counsel) (don) (Entered: 03/31/2003)

301 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiff Ia Protection Adv by SUZIE A BERREGAARD, SREENU P RAJU (ld) (Entered: 02/11/2003)

REMARK: Copies of exhibits A-D [copies of consent decrees] destroyed this date. (ld) (Entered: 07/07/1997)

300 ORDER by Honorable Mark W. Bennett granting motion to withdraw attorney [297-1] attorney SONDRA B KASKA for Pauline Crouse, Michael Monahan, Amanda Poulos, Archie Pratt, Pamela Schuler, Jenalee Sturtz, Ia Protection Adv, and Evert Conner (cc: all counsel) (gk) (Entered: 11/13/1995)

299 DKT. # 299 PART 2 = RESPONSE by plaintiff [298-1] re: motion to withdraw attorney before Honorable Mark W. Bennett (rh) (Entered: 09/22/1995)

299 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiffs by CURT L SYTSMA (rh) (Entered: 09/22/1995)

298 MOTION by defendant to withdraw attorney before Honorable Mark W. Bennett (gk) (Entered: 09/21/1995)

297 MOTION to withdraw attorney before Honorable Mark W. Bennett (gk) (Entered: 09/11/1995)

296 ORDER by Honorable Mark W. Bennett finding the motion request not to take part in attorney fees settlement conf. before Honorable Mark W. Bennett [295-1] moot (cc: all counsel) (gk) (Entered: 12/23/1994)

295 MOTION by intervenor-defendant request not to take part in attorney fees settlement conf. before Honorable Mark W. Bennett (gk) (Entered: 12/16/1994)

294 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer ; Settlement cnf (MAG) set for 1/10/95 @ 9:00 (cc: all counsel) (gk) (Entered: 12/09/1994)

293 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer granting motion to extend time to file reply brief and denying motion to continue hearing before Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer [292-1] (cc: all counsel) (gk) (Entered: 12/09/1994)

https://ecf.iasd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?866891946007347-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:iasd - Docket Report

Page 13 of 29

12/08/1994 12/07/1994 12/07/1994 12/05/1994 12/05/1994 12/05/1994 11/25/1994 11/21/1994 11/21/1994 11/15/1994 11/14/1994
11/07/1994 11/04/1994 11/03/1994 10/28/1994 10/28/1994

292 MOTION by plaintiff Ia Protection Adv to extend time to file reply brief and continue hearing before Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer (gk) (Entered: 12/08/1994)
291 MOTION by plaintiff Ia Protection Adv to withdraw attorney before Judge Mark W. Bennett (gk) (Entered: 12/07/1994)
290 ORDER by Honorable Mark W. Bennett adopting stipulation consent decree [248-1] terminating case (cc: all counsel) (gk) (Entered: 12/07/1994)
289 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer ; Telephone Hearing set for 12/9/94 @ 9:30am (cc: all counsel) (gk) (Entered: 12/07/1994)
288 AFFIDAVIT of Harold Templeman (gk) (Entered: 12/06/1994)
287 MOTION by defendant, plaintiff, defendant to exceed page limitation before Judge Mark W. Bennett (gk) (Entered: 12/06/1994)
286 STATUS REPORT (Memorandum to Court File) by plaintiff (ld) (Entered: 11/25/1994)
285 MEMORANDUM by defendant in support [284-1] of motion response (gk) (Entered: 11/22/1994)
284 RESISTANCE by defendant motion for attorney fees before Honorable Mark W. Bennett [265-1] (gk) (Entered: 11/22/1994)
283 SUPPLEMENT by intervenor-defendant [265-1] to motion for attorney fees before Honorable Mark W. Bennett (gk) (Entered: 11/15/1994)
282 CLERK'S COURT MINUTES: courtroom clerk: LDF; court reporter: C.Miller of Huney Vaughn; Ruling on stipulation [248-1] is deferred parties to submit proposed orders. (gk) Modified on 11/29/1994 (Entered: 11/15/1994)
281 ORDER by Honorable Mark W. Bennett re [257-1] order court requests that counsel appear in person for hearing 11/14/94 (cc: all counsel) (gk) (Entered: 11/08/1994)
280 AFFIDAVIT of Joyce M. Schneider [265-1] regarding motion for attorney fees before Honorable Mark W. Bennett (cl) (Entered: 11/07/1994)
279 ORDER by Honorable Mark W. Bennett granting motion to exceed page limitation [277-1] ***Brief previously filed***(cc: all counsel) (cl) (Entered: 11/04/1994)
278 AFFIDAVIT of Donald G. Thompson [265-1] regarding motion for attorney fees before Honorable Mark W. Bennett (sm) (Entered: 10/28/1994)
277 MOTION by Ia Protection Adv, Jenalee Sturtz, Pamela Schuler, Archie Pratt, Amanda Poulos, Michael Monahan, Pauline Crouse, Evert Conner to exceed page limitation before Honorable Mark W. Bennett (sm)

https://ecf.iasd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?866891946007347-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:iasd - Docket Report

Page 14 of 29

10/28/1994
10/28/1994 10/28/1994 10/28/1994 10/28/1994 10/28/1994 10/28/1994 10/28/1994 10/28/1994 10/28/1994 10/28/1994 10/28/1994
10/19/1994
10/06/1994

(Entered: 10/28/1994)
276 MEMORANDUM by Ia Protection Adv, Jenalee Sturtz, Pamela Schuler, Archie Pratt, Amanda Poulos, Michael Monahan, Pauline Crouse, Evert Conner in support [265-1] of motion for attorney fees before Honorable Mark W. Bennett (sm) (Entered: 10/28/1994)
275 AFFIDAVIT of Heather L. Shank [265-1] regarding motion for attorney fees before Honorable Mark W. Bennett (sm) (Entered: 10/28/1994)
274 AFFIDAVIT of Barbara A. Schwartz [265-1] regarding motion for attorney fees before Honorable Mark W. Bennett (sm) (Entered: 10/28/1994)
273 AFFIDAVIT of Richard A. Pundt [265-1] regarding motion for attorney fees before Honorable Mark W. Bennett (sm) (Entered: 10/28/1994)
272 AFFIDAVIT of Kathryn C. Mast [265-1] regarding motion for attorney fees before Honorable Mark W. Bennett (sm) (Entered: 10/28/1994)
271 AFFIDAVIT of Linda M. Levey [265-1] regarding motion for attorney fees before Honorable Mark W. Bennett (sm) (Entered: 10/28/1994)
270 AFFIDAVIT of Sondra B. Kaska [265-1] regarding motion for attorney fees before Honorable Mark W. Bennett (sm) (Entered: 10/28/1994)
269 AFFIDAVIT of Ellen S. Goldblatt [265-1] regarding motion for attorney fees before Honorable Mark W. Bennett (sm) (Entered: 10/28/1994)
268 AFFIDAVIT of Peter Cubra [265-1] regarding motion for attorney fees before Honorable Mark W. Bennett (sm) (Entered: 10/28/1994)
267 AFFIDAVIT of Ira A. Burnim [265-1] regarding motion for attorney fees before Honorable Mark W. Bennett (sm) (Entered: 10/28/1994)
266 AFFIDAVITS of Sondra kaska, Linda Levey [265-1] regarding motion for attorney fees before Honorable Mark W. Bennett (sm) (Entered: 10/28/1994)
265 MOTION by Ia Protection Adv, Jenalee Sturtz, Pamela Schuler, Archie Pratt, Amanda Poulos, Michael Monahan, Pauline Crouse, Evert Conner for attorney fees before Honorable Mark W. Bennett (sm) (Entered: 10/28/1994)
264 MOTION by Ia Protection Adv, Jenalee Sturtz, Pamela Schuler, Archie Pratt, Amanda Poulos, Michael Monahan, Pauline Crouse, Evert Conner to extend to 10-28-94 for submitting Pla's atty feees, including a complete itemization and ORDER granting order motion [264-1]by James R. Rosenbaum, Clerk (cc: all counsel) (sm) Modified on 10/19/1994 (Entered: 10/19/1994)
263 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer granting motion to withdraw attorney Betty Buitenwerf [262-1] Russ Finken, John Noel, AFSCME, Woodward St Hospital, Glenwood St Hospital, Avanell Baker, Kaylyn J Bauer, Stonecypher, Amemiya, Noel, Hoff, Hoff, Bill;

https://ecf.iasd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?866891946007347-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:iasd - Docket Report

Page 15 of 29

09/30/1994 09/19/1994
09/12/1994 09/09/1994 09/06/1994 08/31/1994 08/23/1994 08/17/1994 08/02/1994

Hucke, Wharnell and Finken, upon the appearance by substitute counsel (cc: all counsel)(sm) Modified on 10/06/1994 (Entered: 10/06/1994)
262 MOTION by Sybil Finken, Rita Wharnell, Gloria Hucke, Bill Hoff, Jan Hoff, Evelyn Noel, Minoru Amemiya, Marjorie Stonecypher, Kaylyn J Bauer, Avanell Baker, Glenwood St Hospital, Woodward St Hospital, AFSCME, John Noel, Russ Finken to withdraw attorney Betty Buitenwerf before Chief Judge Charles R. Wolle (sm) (Entered: 09/30/1994)
261 ORDER by Judge Mark W. Bennett granting in part motion to extend By 10-21-94 Plas' shall file their mtn for atty fees including a complete itemization of all time being claimed, to and including 10-21-94; the Plas' will be allowed to supplement their fee request by filing a supplemental affidavit on 12-7-94 for any time expended after the filing of their initial fee petition [260-1]; this will ensure Defts' and Intervenors have an adequate opportunity to respond to Plas' fee petition w/o requiring the court to rule on discovery requests concerning the preparation of the fee petition (cc: all counsel) (sm) (Entered: 09/19/1994)
260 MOTION by Jeanne Nesbit, Jenalee Sturtz, Pamela Schuler, Archie Pratt, Amanda Poulos, Michael Monahan, Pauline Crouse, Evert Conner to extend to and including 11-28-94 for mtn for atty fees before Magistrate Judge Mark W. Bennett (sm) (Entered: 09/12/1994)
259 ORDER MODIFYING ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CONSENT DECREE by Magistrate Judge Mark W. Bennett re [257-1] order (cc: all counsel) (sm) (Entered: 09/09/1994)
258 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Mark W. Bennett setting hearing on motion for attorney fees Dec-14 & 15-94 at 9:00 am ; Pla file mtn for atty fees & sup affidavits 10-1-94; Dfts & Intervenors file resist 11-1-94; any reply by Pla's 11-11-94 [235-1] (cc: all counsel) (sm) Modified on 09/08/1994 (Entered: 09/06/1994)
257 ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CONSENT DECREE by Magistrate Judge Mark W. Bennett setting hearing on stipulation [248-1] 9:00 11/14/94 (cc: all counsel) see Order for particulars (sm) Modified on 11/29/1994 (Entered: 09/01/1994)
256 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM by Ia Protection Adv, Jenalee Sturtz, Pamela Schuler, Archie Pratt, Amanda Poulos, Michael Monahan, Pauline Crouse, Evert Conner in support [249-1] of motion for order granting approval of consent decree (#248) before Magistrate Judge Mark W. Bennett (sm) (Entered: 08/23/1994)
255 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Mark W. Bennett denying motion for hearing (subject matter to be moot) [202-1] (cc: all counsel) (sm) (Entered: 08/18/1994)
254 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Mark W. Bennett ; In-court hearing (MAG) set for 8/29/94 at 9:30 am (cc: all counsel) (sm) (Entered: 08/03/1994)

https://ecf.iasd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?866891946007347-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:iasd - Docket Report

Page 16 of 29

07/28/1994 07/26/1994 07/21/1994
07/19/1994 07/15/1994 07/15/1994 07/12/1994 06/28/1994 06/28/1994
06/23/1994

253 RESISTANCE by Ia Protection Adv, Jenalee Sturtz, Pamela Schuler, Archie Pratt, Amanda Poulos, Michael Monahan, Pauline Crouse, Evert Conner motion for order to approve consent decree and revised notice to the class before Magistrate Judge Mark W. Bennett [251-1] (sm) (Entered: 07/28/1994)
252 RESISTANCE by Ia Protection Adv, Jenalee Sturtz, Pamela Schuler, Archie Pratt, Amanda Poulos, Michael Monahan, Pauline Crouse, Evert Conner motion for order to approve consent decree and revised notice to the class before Magistrate Judge Mark W. Bennett [251-1] (sm) (Entered: 07/26/1994)
251 MOTION by Sybil Finken, Rita Wharnell, Gloria Hucke, Bill Hoff, Jan Hoff, Evelyn Noel, Minoru Amemiya, Marjorie Stonecypher, Kaylyn J Bauer, Avanell Baker, Glenwood St Hospital, Woodward St Hospital, AFSCME, John Noel, Russ Finken for order to approve consent decree and revised notice to the class before Magistrate Judge Mark W. Bennett (sm) (Entered: 07/21/1994)
250 MOTION by Jeanne Nesbit, Sandra Scott, Terry E Branstad, William E Campbell, Michael Davis, Larry Jackson, Charles M Palmer, Michael V. Reagen for order to approve consent decree and revised notice to the class before Magistrate Judge Mark W. Bennett (sm) (Entered: 07/20/1994)
249 MOTION by plaintiff Ia Protection Adv for order granting approval of consent decree (#248) before Magistrate Judge Mark W. Bennett (gk) (Entered: 07/15/1994)
248 STIPULATION - Consent Decree (gk) (Entered: 07/15/1994)
247 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Mark W. Bennett setting hearing on motion for Nunc Pro Tunc order before Magistrate Judge Mark W. Bennett [2441] 2:30 8/2/94 (cc: all counsel) (gk) (Entered: 07/12/1994)
246 RESPONSE by plaintiff Ia Protection Adv, plaintiff Jenalee Sturtz, plaintiff Pamela Schuler, plaintiff Archie Pratt, plaintiff Amanda Poulos, plaintiff Michael Monahan, plaintiff Pauline Crouse, plaintiff Evert Conner [244-1] re: motion for Nunc Pro Tunc order before Magistrate Judge Mark W. Bennett (sm) (Entered: 06/28/1994)
245 RESISTANCE by Sybil Finken, Rita Wharnell, Gloria Hucke, Bill Hoff, Jan Hoff, Evelyn Noel, Minoru Amemiya, Marjorie Stonecypher, Kaylyn J Bauer, Avanell Baker, Glenwood St Hospital, Woodward St Hospital, AFSCME, John Noel, Russ Finken motion for Nunc Pro Tunc order before Magistrate Judge Mark W. Bennett [244-1] (sm) (Entered: 06/28/1994)
244 MOTION by Jeanne Nesbit, Jenalee Sturtz, Pamela Schuler, Archie Pratt, Amanda Poulos, Michael Monahan, Pauline Crouse, Evert Conner for Nunc Pro Tunc order before Magistrate Judge Mark W. Bennett (sm) (Entered: 06/23/1994)

https://ecf.iasd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?866891946007347-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:iasd - Docket Report

Page 17 of 29

06/13/1994
05/10/1994 04/29/1994 04/21/1994 04/04/1994 04/01/1994 03/30/1994
03/29/1994 03/25/1994 03/21/1994 03/21/1994 03/11/1994

243 ORDER REGARDING SETTLEMENT by Magistrate Judge Mark W. Bennett ; Trial removed from calendar , and ; Dismsl papers ddl 7/15/94; parties shall file on or b/4 7/15/94 a report to the court or a motion to approve settlement addressing any issues arising under Rule 23 (e) (cc: all counsel) (sm) (Entered: 06/13/1994)
242 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Mark W. Bennett motion for attorney fees [235-1] ; hearing continued by agreemt of both parties, parties to notify if another mtn hearing is needed (cc: all counsel) (sm) (Entered: 05/10/1994)
241 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Mark W. Bennett denying motion to reconsider order denying amendment of dispositive motion ddl [225-1] (cc: all counsel) (cl) (Entered: 04/29/1994)
240 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Mark W. Bennett setting hearing on motion for attorney fees [235-1] 1:30 5/10/94 (cc: all counsel) (sm) (Entered: 04/22/1994)
239 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Mark W. Bennett rescheduling hearing on motion for attorney fees [235-1] 1:30 5/9/94 (cc: all counsel) (sm) (Entered: 04/04/1994)
238 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Mark W. Bennett resetting hearing on motion for attorney fees [235-1] 1:30 4/29/94 (cc: all counsel) (lc) (Entered: 04/01/1994)
237 RESISTANCE by Sybil Finken, Rita Wharnell, Gloria Hucke, Bill Hoff, Jan Hoff, Evelyn Noel, Minoru Amemiya, Marjorie Stonecypher, Kaylyn J Bauer, Avanell Baker, Glenwood St Hospital, Woodward St Hospital, AFSCME, John Noel, Russ Finken motion for attorney fees before Magistrate Judge Mark W. Bennett [235-1] (sm) (Entered: 03/30/1994)
236 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Mark W. Bennett setting telephone hearing on motion for attorney fees Bennett [235-1] 1:30 4/19/94 Intervenor and Dfts file their resistance by 4-11-94; Intervenor counsel shall initiate the conf. call (cc: all counsel) (sm) (Entered: 03/29/1994)
235 MOTION by Ia Protection Adv, Jenalee Sturtz, Pamela Schuler, Archie Pratt, Amanda Poulos, Michael Monahan, Pauline Crouse, Evert Conner for attorney fees before Magistrate Judge Mark W. Bennett (sm) (Entered: 03/29/1994)
REMARK-Exhibits from hearing held 3-14-94 in file. (sm) (Entered: 03/21/1994)
234 CLERK'S COURT MINUTES: courtroom clerk: Robert J. Johnson; ; granting in part motion for protective order and sanctions before Magistrate Judge Mark W. Bennett [228-1] (sm) (Entered: 03/21/1994)
233 MEMORANDUM in support [228-1] of motion for protective order and sanctions before Magistrate Judge Mark W. Bennett (gk) (Entered: 03/11/1994)

https://ecf.iasd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?866891946007347-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:iasd - Docket Report

Page 18 of 29

03/11/1994 03/10/1994
03/10/1994
03/10/1994 03/08/1994 03/04/1994 02/25/1994 02/16/1994 02/10/1994 02/09/1994

232 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Mark W. Bennett granting motion to exceed page limitation before Magistrate Judge Mark W. Bennett [229-1] (cc: all counsel) (gk) (Entered: 03/11/1994)
231 MEMORANDUM (Intervenor's brief in support of resistance to Plas' motion for protective order and sanctions by Sybil Finken, Rita Wharnell, Gloria Hucke, Bill Hoff, Jan Hoff, Evelyn Noel, Minoru Amemiya, Marjorie Stonecypher, Kaylyn J Bauer, Avanell Baker, Glenwood St Hospital, Woodward St Hospital, AFSCME, John Noel, Russ Finken in support [230-1] of motion for protective order and sanctions (sm) (Entered: 03/10/1994)
230 RESISTANCE by Sybil Finken, Rita Wharnell, Gloria Hucke, Bill Hoff, Jan Hoff, Evelyn Noel, Minoru Amemiya, Marjorie Stonecypher, Kaylyn J Bauer, Avanell Baker, Glenwood St Hospital, Woodward St Hospital, AFSCME, John Noel, Russ Finken motion for protective order and sanctions before Magistrate Judge Mark W. Bennett [228-1] (sm) (Entered: 03/10/1994)
229 MOTION by Ia Protection Adv, Jenalee Sturtz, Pamela Schuler, Archie Pratt, Amanda Poulos, Michael Monahan, Pauline Crouse, Evert Conner to exceed page limitation before Magistrate Judge Mark W. Bennett (sm) (Entered: 03/10/1994)
228 MOTION by Ia Protection Adv, Jenalee Sturtz, Pamela Schuler, Archie Pratt, Amanda Poulos, Michael Monahan, Pauline Crouse, Evert Conner for protective order and sanctions before Magistrate Judge Mark W. Bennett (sm) (Entered: 03/08/1994)
227 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Mark W. Bennett ; In-court hearing (MAG) 3/14/94 at 9:30 am. concerning a motion to be filed by the Pla on 3/7/94 regarding the alleged contacting of named Plas' and members of the class by the Intervenors' counsel. All written briefs shall be delivered to the court no later than 3/10/94. (cc: all counsel) (sm) (Entered: 03/07/1994)
226 RESISTANCE by Ia Protection Adv, Jenalee Sturtz, Pamela Schuler, Archie Pratt, Amanda Poulos, Michael Monahan, Pauline Crouse, Evert Conner motion to reconsider order denying amendment of dispositive motion ddl before Magistrate Judge Mark W. Bennett [225-1] (sm) (Entered: 02/25/1994)
225 MOTION by intervenor-defendant to reconsider order denying amendment of dispositive motion ddl before Magistrate Judge Mark W. Bennett (cl) (Entered: 02/17/1994)
224 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Mark W. Bennett denying motion to amend dispositive motion deadline to 3/14/94 [220-1] (cc: all counsel) (jv) (Entered: 02/10/1994)
223 REPLY by intervenor-defendant Sybil Finken, intervenor-defendant Russ Finken to resistance motion to amend dispositive motion deadline to 3/14/94 before Magistrate Judge Mark W. Bennett [220-1] (sm) (Entered: 02/09/1994)

https://ecf.iasd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?866891946007347-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:iasd - Docket Report

Page 19 of 29

02/08/1994
02/08/1994 01/26/1994
01/24/1994 01/21/1994 01/07/1994 01/07/1994 01/04/1994 12/22/1993 12/22/1993

222 MEMORANDUM by Ia Protection Adv, Jenalee Sturtz, Pamela Schuler, Archie Pratt, Amanda Poulos, Michael Monahan, Pauline Crouse, Evert Conner, Sybil Finken, Russ Finken in support [221-1] of motion response, [220-1] of motion to amend dispositive motion deadline to 3/14/94 before Magistrate Judge Mark W. Bennett (sm) (Entered: 02/08/1994)
221 RESISTANCE by Ia Protection Adv, Jenalee Sturtz, Pamela Schuler, Archie Pratt, Amanda Poulos, Michael Monahan, Pauline Crouse, Evert Conner, Sybil Finken, Russ Finken motion to amend dispositive motion deadline to 3/14/94 before Magistrate Judge Mark W. Bennett [220-1] (sm) (Entered: 02/08/1994)
220 MOTION by Sybil Finken, Rita Wharnell, Gloria Hucke, Bill Hoff, Jan Hoff, Evelyn Noel, Minoru Amemiya, Marjorie Stonecypher, Kaylyn J Bauer, Avanell Baker, Glenwood St Hospital, Woodward St Hospital, AFSCME, John Noel, Russ Finken to amend dispositive motion deadline to 3/14/94 before Magistrate Judge Mark W. Bennett (sm) (Entered: 01/26/1994)
219 ORDER-consent to proceed before a U.S. Mag. Judge; signed by attorney for Intervenors Betty Biutenwerf by Honorable Harold D. Vietor (cc: all counsel) (sm) (Entered: 01/24/1994)
218 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Mark W. Bennett ; Trial set for 6/13/94 ; ; Final pretrial cnf (MAG) 6/1/94 at 3:00 pm , ; (cc: all counsel) (sm) (Entered: 01/24/1994)
217 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Mark W. Bennett denying motion to amend Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law [213-1] (cc: all counsel) (sm) (Entered: 01/10/1994)
216 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Mark W. Bennett ; Final pretrial cnf (MAG) resched to 2/3/94 10:00 am (cc: all counsel) (sm) (Entered: 01/10/1994)
215 RESISTANCE by Jeanne Nesbit, Sandra Scott, Terry E Branstad, William E Campbell, Michael Davis, Larry Jackson, Charles M Palmer, Michael V. Reagen motion to amend Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law before Magistrate Mark W. Bennett [213-1] (sm) (Entered: 01/04/1994)
214 MEMORANDUM by Ia Protection Adv, Jenalee Sturtz, Pamela Schuler, Archie Pratt, Amanda Poulos, Michael Monahan, Pauline Crouse, Evert Conner in support of motion to amend Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law before Magistrate Mark W. Bennett [213-1] (sm) (Entered: 12/22/1993)
213 MOTION by Ia Protection Adv, Jenalee Sturtz, Pamela Schuler, Archie Pratt, Amanda Poulos, Michael Monahan, Pauline Crouse, Evert Conner to amend Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law before Magistrate Mark W. Bennett (sm) (Entered: 12/22/1993)

https://ecf.iasd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?866891946007347-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:iasd - Docket Report

Page 20 of 29

12/15/1993 12/09/1993 12/07/1993 12/06/1993 12/03/1993 12/03/1993 12/02/1993 12/02/1993
11/17/1993 11/17/1993 11/16/1993
11/15/1993 11/12/1993

212 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Mark Bennett denying motion for order for mediation [206-1], denying motion to mandate stipulation mediation [205-1] (cc: all counsel) (sm) (Entered: 12/16/1993)
211 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Mark Bennett granting in part and denying in part motion for summary judgment before Magistrate Mark W. Bennett [151-1] (cc: all counsel) (sm) (Entered: 12/09/1993)
210 RESISTANCE by intervenor-defendant motion for before Magistrate Mark W. Bennett [205-1] (rh) (Entered: 12/07/1993)
209 REPLY TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF by Jeanne Nesbit, Sandra Scott, Terry E Branstad, William E Campbell, Michael Davis, Larry Jackson, Charles M Palmer, Michael V. Reagen re [206-1] (sm) (Entered: 12/06/1993)
208 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Mark Bennett setting hearing on motion for order for mediation [206-1] 4:30 12/9/93 by phone conf. call PLACED BY PLA. CNSL (cc: all counsel) (rh) (Entered: 12/03/1993)
207 SUPPLEMENT by plaintiff Ia Protection Adv re memorandum [200-1] (rh) (Entered: 12/03/1993)
206 MOTION by Ia Protection Adv, Jenalee Sturtz, Pamela Schuler, Archie Pratt, Amanda Poulos, Michael Monahan, Pauline Crouse, Evert Conner for order for mediation before Magistrate Mark W. Bennett (sm) (Entered: 12/02/1993)
205 MOTION "To mandate stipulation" by Ia Protection Adv, Jenalee Sturtz, Pamela Schuler, Archie Pratt, Amanda Poulos, Michael Monahan, Pauline Crouse, Evert Conner for before Magistrate Mark W. Bennett Exhibits A-D in separate binder (sm) Modified on 12/02/1993 (Entered: 12/02/1993)
204 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Mark Bennett granting motion to intervene [182-1] (cc: all counsel) (sm) (Entered: 11/18/1993)
203 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Mark Bennett denying motion to continue Trial Date to and including 6-1-94 before Magistrate Mark W. Bennett [188-1] (cc: all counsel) (sm) (Entered: 11/17/1993)
202 MOTION by Sybil Finken, Rita Wharnell, Gloria Hucke, Bill Hoff, Jan Hoff, Evelyn Noel, Minoru Amemiya, Marjorie Stonecypher, Kaylyn J Bauer, Avanell Baker, Glenwood St Hospital, Woodward St Hospital, AFSCME, John Noel, Russ Finken for hearing before Magistrate Mark W. Bennett (sm) (Entered: 11/16/1993)
201 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Mark Bennett granting motion to file reply brief and to file overlength brief of 19 pages before Magistrate Mark W. Bennett [197-1] (cc: all counsel) (sm) (Entered: 11/15/1993)
200 MEMORANDUM by Ia Protection Adv, Jenalee Sturtz, Pamela Schuler, Archie Pratt, Amanda Poulos, Michael Monahan, Pauline Crouse, Evert Conner in support of motion response [199-1] for continuance of trial

https://ecf.iasd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?866891946007347-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:iasd - Docket Report

Page 21 of 29

11/12/1993
11/12/1993
11/12/1993
11/09/1993 11/08/1993 11/05/1993 11/05/1993 11/04/1993 11/04/1993 11/04/1993 11/03/1993 11/03/1993

date (sm) Modified on 11/12/1993 (Entered: 11/12/1993)
199 RESISTANCE by Ia Protection Adv, Jenalee Sturtz, Pamela Schuler, Archie Pratt, Amanda Poulos, Michael Monahan, Pauline Crouse, Evert Conner motion to continue Trial Date to and including 6-1-94 before Magistrate Mark W. Bennett [188-1] (sm) Modified on 11/12/1993 (Entered: 11/12/1993)
198 REPLY by Sybil Finken, Rita Wharnell, Gloria Hucke, Bill Hoff, Jan Hoff, Evelyn Noel, Minoru Amemiya, Marjorie Stonecypher, Kaylyn J Bauer, Avanell Baker, Glenwood St Hospital, Woodward St Hospital, AFSCME, John Noel, Russ Finken re [182-1] to plas' resistance to motion to intervene(sm) Modified on 11/12/1993 (Entered: 11/12/1993)
197 MOTION by Sybil Finken, Rita Wharnell, Gloria Hucke, Bill Hoff, Jan Hoff, Evelyn Noel, Minoru Amemiya, Marjorie Stonecypher, Kaylyn J Bauer, Avanell Baker, Glenwood St Hospital, Woodward St Hospital, AFSCME, John Noel, Russ Finken to file reply brief and to file overlength brief of 19 pages before Magistrate Mark W. Bennett (sm) (Entered: 11/12/1993)
195 MEMORANDUM by Ia Protection Adv, Jenalee Sturtz, Pamela Schuler, Archie Pratt, Amanda Poulos, Michael Monahan, Pauline Crouse, Evert Conner in support of motion response resistance to motion to intervene [192-1] (sm) (Entered: 11/10/1993)
194 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Mark Bennett granting motion to exceed page limitation re: memo in support of resis to m/intervene [193-1] (cc: all counsel) (sm) (Entered: 11/08/1993)
193 MOTION by plaintiffs to exceed page limitation re: memo in support of resis to m/intervene before Magistrate Mark W. Bennett (lc) (Entered: 11/05/1993)
192 RESISTANCE by plaintiffs motion to intervene before Magistrate Mark W. Bennett [182-1] (lc) (Entered: 11/05/1993)
196 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Mark Bennett ; Telephone Hearing set for 11/16/93 at 10:00 am (cc: all counsel) (sm) Modified on 11/18/1993 (Entered: 11/09/1993)
191 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Mark Bennett denying motion for decertification of class [152-1] (cc: all counsel) (sm) (Entered: 11/04/1993)
190 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Mark Bennett denying motion for joinder [149-1] (cc: all counsel) (sm) (Entered: 11/04/1993)
189 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Mark Bennett granting motion to extend to and including 11-5-93 to file their resistance [187-1] (cc: all counsel) (sm) (Entered: 11/03/1993)
188 MOTION by Jeanne Nesbit, Sandra Scott, Terry E Branstad, William E Campbell, Michael Davis, Larry Jackson, Charles M Palmer, Michael V.

https://ecf.iasd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?866891946007347-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:iasd - Docket Report

Page 22 of 29

11/01/1993 10/25/1993 10/22/1993 10/19/1993 10/18/1993
10/18/1993 10/18/1993 10/04/1993 10/04/1993 10/01/1993 10/01/1993 10/01/1993

Reagen to continue Trial Date to and including 6-1-94 before Magistrate Mark W. Bennett (sm) (Entered: 11/03/1993)
187 MOTION by Ia Protection Adv, Jenalee Sturtz, Pamela Schuler, Archie Pratt, Amanda Poulos, Michael Monahan, Pauline Crouse, Evert Conner to extend to and including 11-5-93 to file their resistance before Magistrate Mark W. Bennett (sm) (Entered: 11/01/1993)
186 DESIGNATION of expert witnesses by Sandra Scott, Terry E Branstad, William E Campbell, Michael Davis, Larry Jackson, Charles M Palmer, Michael V. Reagen (sm) (Entered: 10/25/1993)
185 DESIGNATION of expert witnesses by Ia Protection Adv, Jenalee Sturtz, Pamela Schuler, Archie Pratt, Amanda Poulos, Michael Monahan, Pauline Crouse, Evert Conner (sm) (Entered: 10/25/1993)
184 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Mark Bennett granting motion to extend to 10-22-93 to disclose expert witnesses [181-1] (cc: all counsel) (sm) (Entered: 10/19/1993)
183 MEMORANDUM by Sybil Finken, Rita Wharnell, Gloria Hucke, Bill Hoff, Jan Hoff, Evelyn Noel, Minoru Amemiya, Marjorie Stonecypher, Kaylyn J Bauer, Avanell Baker, Glenwood St Hospital, Woodward St Hospital, AFSCME, John Noel, Russ Finken in support of motion to intervene before Magistrate Mark W. Bennett [182-1] (sm) (Entered: 10/18/1993)
182 MOTION to intervene before Magistrate Mark W. Bennett (sm) (Entered: 10/18/1993)
181 MOTION by Ia Protection Adv, Jenalee Sturtz, Pamela Schuler, Archie Pratt, Amanda Poulos, Michael Monahan, Pauline Crouse, Evert Conner to extend to 10-22-93 to disclose expert witnesses before Magistrate Mark W. Bennett (sm) (Entered: 10/18/1993)
180 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Mark Bennett granting motion to file discovery and settlement documets [177-1] (cc: all counsel) (sm) Modified on 10/04/1993 (Entered: 10/04/1993)
179 MEMORANDUM by Ia Protection Adv, Jenalee Sturtz, Pamela Schuler, Archie Pratt, Amanda Poulos, Michael Monahan, Pauline Crouse, Evert Conner in support of Plas' resistance tomtns for SJ & decertification of class (sm) (Entered: 10/04/1993)
175 STATEMENT by Ia Protection Adv, Jenalee Sturtz, Pamela Schuler, Archie Pratt, Amanda Poulos, Michael Monahan, Pauline Crouse, Evert Conner in support of motion response [172-1] (sm) (Entered: 10/04/1993)
178 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Mark Bennett granting motion to exceed page limitation before Magistrate Mark W. Bennett [176-1] (cc: all counsel) (sm) (Entered: 10/01/1993)
177 MOTION TO FILE DISCOVERY AND SETTLEMENT DOCUMENTS

https://ecf.iasd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?866891946007347-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:iasd - Docket Report

Page 23 of 29

10/01/1993 10/01/1993 10/01/1993 10/01/1993 10/01/1993 10/01/1993 09/30/1993 09/27/1993
09/23/1993 09/20/1993 09/20/1993

by Ia Protection Adv, Jenalee Sturtz, Pamela Schuler, Archie Pratt, Amanda Poulos, Michael Monahan, Pauline Crouse, Evert Conner for before Magistrate Mark W. Bennett (sm) (Entered: 10/01/1993)
176 MOTION by Ia Protection Adv, Jenalee Sturtz, Pamela Schuler, Archie Pratt, Amanda Poulos, Michael Monahan, Pauline Crouse, Evert Conner to exceed page limitation before Magistrate Mark W. Bennett (sm) (Entered: 10/01/1993)
174 MEMORANDUM by Ia Protection Adv, Jenalee Sturtz, Pamela Schuler, Archie Pratt, Amanda Poulos, Michael Monahan, Pauline Crouse, Evert Conner in support of resistance to motions for S.J. and decertification of class [173-1] (sm) (Entered: 10/01/1993)
173 RESISTANCE by Ia Protection Adv, Jenalee Sturtz, Pamela Schuler, Archie Pratt, Amanda Poulos, Michael Monahan, Pauline Crouse, Evert Conner motion for decertification of class before Magistrate Mark W. Bennett [152-1] (sm) (Entered: 10/01/1993)
172 RESISTANCE by Ia Protection Adv, Jenalee Sturtz, Pamela Schuler, Archie Pratt, Amanda Poulos, Michael Monahan, Pauline Crouse, Evert Conner motion for summary judgment before Magistrate Mark W. Bennett [151-1] (sm) (Entered: 10/01/1993)
171 MEMORANDUM by Ia Protection Adv, Jenalee Sturtz, Pamela Schuler, Archie Pratt, Amanda Poulos, Michael Monahan, Pauline Crouse, Evert Conner in support of resistance to 1 motion for joinder of parties [170-1] (sm) (Entered: 10/01/1993)
170 RESISTANCE by Ia Protection Adv, Jenalee Sturtz, Pamela Schuler, Archie Pratt, Amanda Poulos, Michael Monahan, Pauline Crouse, Evert Conner motion for joinder in before Magistrate Mark W. Bennett [149-1] (sm) (Entered: 10/01/1993)
169 AFFIDAVIT of Herbert J. Grossman, M.D. regarding motion for summary judgment before Magistrate Mark W. Bennett [151-1] (sm) (Entered: 09/30/1993)
162 RESPONSE by Ia Protection Adv, Jenalee Sturtz, Pamela Schuler, Archie Pratt, Amanda Poulos, Michael Monahan, Pauline Crouse, Evert Conner re: [166-1] to motion to extend to 11-1-93 to comply w/production of documents before Magistrate Mark W. Bennett (sm) (Entered: 09/27/1993)
167 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Mark Bennett setting hearing on motion to extend to comply w/production of documents before Magistrate Mark W. Bennett [166-1] 1:30 10/7/93 (cc: all counsel) (lc) (Entered: 09/24/1993)
165 RESPONSE to REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS EIGHTH SET which is not on the system by Jeanne Nesbit, Sandra Scott, Terry E Branstad, William E Campbell, Michael Davis, Larry Jackson, Charles M Palmer, Michael V. Reagen (sm) (Entered: 09/21/1993)
166 MOTION by Jeanne Nesbit, Sandra Scott, Terry E Branstad, William E

https://ecf.iasd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?866891946007347-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:iasd - Docket Report

Page 24 of 29

09/20/1993
09/10/1993 09/02/1993 08/30/1993 08/27/1993 08/27/1993
08/26/1993 08/25/1993

Campbell, Michael Davis, Larry Jackson, Charles M Palmer, Michael V. Reagen to extend to 11-1-93 to comply w/production of documents before Magistrate Mark W. Bennett (sm) (Entered: 09/20/1993)
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 8TH SET by Jeanne Nesbit, Sandra Scott, Terry E Branstad, William E Campbell, Michael Davis, Larry Jackson, Charles M Palmer, Michael V. Reagen re: [161-1] Scheduling order ; In-court hearing (MAG) MWB 105-93 @ 9:00 a.m. Dft's shall produce information requested in Pla's document request within 30 days from date of this order; Dft. may seek reconsideration of this ruling within 7 days of the date of this order if they believe they can make a proper showing that request is unduly burdensome.One posible alternate solution would be to produce a random sample of IPPs for a smaller population that sought by Pla's originally. Parties are encouraged to discuss this option., re: [161-2] order (sm) (Entered: 09/20/1993)
164 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Mark Bennett ; In-court hearing (MAG) cancelled and discussion to be conbined with pend. mtns. hrng. on 10/7/93 @ 1:30 (cc: all counsel, cal) (rh) (Entered: 09/10/1993)
163 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Mark Bennett ; Trial reset for 2/8/94 , ; Dispositive Motion ddl reset for 11/8/93 (cc: all counsel) (gk) (Entered: 09/02/1993)
162 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Mark Bennett setting hearing on all pending motions: motion for decertification of class [152-1], motion for sj [151-1], motion for joinder before Magistrate Mark W. Bennett [149-1] 1:30 10/7/93 (cc: all counsel) (lc) (Entered: 08/30/1993)
161 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Mark Bennett granting motion to compel discovery responses in part [141-1] setting hearing on motion to compel discovery responses [141-1] 9:00 10/5/93 See order for particulars (cc: all counsel) (sm) Modified on 09/27/1993 (Entered: 09/27/1993)
161 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Mark Bennett ; In-court hearing (MAG) MWB 10-5-93 @ 9:00 a.m. Dft's shall produce information requested in Pla's document request within 30 days from date of this order; Dft. may seek reconsideration of this ruling within 7 days of the date of this order if they believe they can make a proper showing that request is unduly burdensome.One posible alternate solution would be to produce a random sample of IPPs for a smaller population that sought by Pla's originally. Parties are encouraged to discuss this option. (cc: all counsel) (sm) Modified on 09/27/1993 (Entered: 08/30/1993)
159 SCHEDULING REPORT AND ORDER - by Magistrate Celeste F. Bremer : ; dispositive mtn ddl set 12/17/93 ; Discovery ddl set for 12/17/93 ; Settlement ddl set for 12/17/93 (cc: all counsel) (sm) (Entered: 08/26/1993)
158 AFFIDAVIT of various (John Marinkovich & Robert L. Sprague) regarding motion for summary judgment before Magistrate Mark W. Bennett [151-1] (sm) (Entered: 08/25/1993)

https://ecf.iasd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?866891946007347-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:iasd - Docket Report

Page 25 of 29

08/23/1993
08/23/1993 08/23/1993 08/20/1993
08/19/1993 08/19/1993
08/19/1993 08/19/1993 08/09/1993 08/09/1993 07/28/1993 07/28/1993

160 MEMORANDUM by Jeanne Nesbit, Sandra Scott, Terry E Branstad, William E Campbell, Michael Davis, Larry Jackson, Charles M Palmer, Michael V. Reagen in support of motion for summary judgment filed per Order #156 before Magistrate Mark W. Bennett [151-1] (sm) Modified on 08/27/1993 (Entered: 08/27/1993)
157 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Mark Bennett granting motion to extend to the end of 9-7-93 business day to file a resistance to Dft's mtn for Joinder of parties [154-1] (cc: all counsel) (sm) (Entered: 08/24/1993)
156 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Mark Bennett granting motion to exceed page limitation [155-1] (cc: all counsel) (sm) (Entered: 08/23/1993)
154 MOTION by Ia Protection Adv, Jenalee Sturtz, Pamela Schuler, Archie Pratt, Amanda Poulos, Michael Monahan, Pauline Crouse, Evert Conner to extend to the end of 9-7-93 business day to file a resistance to Dft's mtn for Joinder of parties before Magistrate Mark W. Bennett (sm) (Entered: 08/20/1993)
155 MOTION by Jeanne Nesbit, Sandra Scott, Larry Jackson, Charles M Palmer, Michael V. Reagen to exceed page limitation before Magistrate Mark W. Bennett (sm) (Entered: 08/23/1993)
153 STATEMENTOF UNDISPUTED FACATS by defendant Jeanne Nesbit, defendant Sandra Scott, defendant Terry E Branstad, defendant William E Campbell, defendant Michael Davis, defendant Larry Jackson, defendant Charles M Palmer, defendant Michael V. Reagen in support of motion for decertification of class before Magistrate Mark W. Bennett [152-1] (sm) (Entered: 08/20/1993)
152 MOTION by Jeanne Nesbit, Sandra Scott, Terry E Branstad, William E Campbell, Michael Davis, Larry Jackson, Charles M Palmer, Michael V. Reagen for decertification of class before Magistrate Mark W. Bennett (sm) (Entered: 08/20/1993)
151 MOTION by Jeanne Nesbit, Sandra Scott, Terry E Branstad, William E Campbell, Michael Davis, Larry Jackson, Charles M Palmer, Michael V. Reagen for summary judgment before Magistrate Mark W. Bennett (sm) (Entered: 08/20/1993)
150 MEMORANDUM by Jeanne Nesbit, Sandra Scott, Larry Jackson, Charles M Palmer, Michael V. Reagen in support of motion for joinder in before Magistrate Mark W. Bennett [149-1] (sm) (Entered: 08/09/1993)
149 MOTION by Jeanne Nesbit, Sandra Scott, Larry Jackson, Charles M Palmer, Michael V. Reagen for joinder in before Magistrate Mark W. Bennett (sm) (Entered: 08/09/1993)
148 REPLY by Ia Protection Adv, Jenalee Sturtz, Pamela Schuler, Archie Pratt, Amanda Poulos, Michael Monahan, Pauline Crouse, Evert Conner re [142-1] (sm) (Entered: 07/28/1993)
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Mark Bennett granting motion to compel discovery responses [141-1] granting motion for leave to file a reply

https://ecf.iasd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?866891946007347-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:iasd - Docket Report

Page 26 of 29

07/27/1993 07/27/1993 07/27/1993 07/27/1993 07/21/1993
07/15/1993 06/04/1993 06/02/1993 05/27/1993 05/24/1993 05/14/1993 05/03/1993

[146-1] setting hearing on Scheduling order [138-1] 1:30 8/27/93 Parties shall also confer and sumbit a proposed, revised scheduling order. (cc: all counsel) (sm) Modified on 09/27/1993 (Entered: 07/28/1993)
146 MOTION by Ia Protection Adv, Jenalee Sturtz, Pamela Schuler, Archie Pratt, Amanda Poulos, Michael Monahan, Pauline Crouse, Evert Conner for leave to file a reply before Magistrate Mark W. Bennett (sm) (Entered: 07/27/1993)
145 AFFIDAVIT of Plaintiffs' Counsel (Faxed approved for filing by Judge Bennett) (sm) Modified on 07/27/1993 (Entered: 07/27/1993)
144 AFFIDAVIT of Kari Hamel(Faxed approved for filing by Mag. Judge Bennett. (sm) Modified on 07/27/1993 (Entered: 07/27/1993)
143 MEMORANDUM by Ia Protection Adv, Jenalee Sturtz, Pamela Schuler, Archie Pratt, Amanda Poulos, Michael Monahan, Pauline Crouse, Evert Conner in support of motion to compel discovery responses before Magistrate Mark W. Bennett [142-1] (sm) (Entered: 07/27/1993)
142 RESPONSE by Jeanne Nesbit, Sandra Scott, Terry E Branstad, William E Campbell, Michael Davis, Larry Jackson, Charles M Palmer, Michael V. Reagen to Pla's. motion for order compelling discovery; request for hearing and request for scheduling conf. (no motions found on computer) (sm) Modified on 07/27/1993 (Entered: 07/21/1993)
141 MOTION by Ia Protection Adv, Jenalee Sturtz, Pamela Schuler, Archie Pratt, Amanda Poulos, Michael Monahan, Pauline Crouse, Evert Conner to compel discovery responses before Magistrate Mark W. Bennett (sm) Modified on 07/27/1993 (Entered: 07/27/1993)
140 ORDER by Honorable William C. Stuart ; Settlement conference 6/30/93 @ 9:30 in DsM - rm. #403 (cc: all counsel, cal) (rh) (Entered: 06/04/1993)
139 ORDER referring case to W. Stuart for settlement conference. by Magistrate Judge Mark Bennett (cc: all counsel, cc: WCS, J.) (rh) (Entered: 06/02/1993)
138 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Mark Bennett ; Trial sched for 3 wks on 2/8/94 , and ; Final pretrial cnf (MAG) set for 1/17/94 @ 9:00 a.m. This matter is referred to Mag. Bremer for the purose of conducting a settlement conf. (cc: all counsel) (sm) (Entered: 05/28/1993)
137 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Mark Bennett ; Status hearing (MAG) resched to 5-26-93 @ 10:00 a.m (cc: all counsel) (sm) (Entered: 05/25/1993)
136 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Mark Bennett ; Status hearing (MAG) resched. 5/25/93 @ 1:30 p.m. (cc: all counsel) (sm) (Entered: 05/14/1993)
135 STATUS REPORT by Ia Protection Adv, Jenalee Sturtz, Pamela Schuler, Archie Pratt, Amanda Poulos, Michael Monahan, Pauline Crouse, Evert

https://ecf.iasd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?866891946007347-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:iasd - Docket Report

Page 27 of 29

04/16/1993 04/05/1993 04/02/1993 02/25/1993
02/25/1993 02/04/1993 02/04/1993 11/18/1992 11/16/1992 09/09/1992 08/31/1992

Conner (sm) (Entered: 05/03/1993)
134 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Mark Bennett ; Trial set for 8/23/93 tentatively ; Status hearing (MAG) set for 5/17/93 @ 11:00 am , and ; Status report ddl two weeks - 4/30/93 (cc: all counsel) (sm) (Entered: 04/16/1993)
133 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Mark Bennett ; Status hearing (MAG) MWB telephonic 4/15/93 at 9:00 am. Pla's cnsl shall be responsible for initiating the call. (cc: all counsel) (sm) (Entered: 04/06/1993)
132 CONSENT TO PROCEED BEFORE U.S. MAGISTRATE AND ORDER OF REFERENCE By order of W.C. Stuart to Magistrate Judge Mark Bennett for all further proceedings (cc: counsel) (sm) (Entered: 04/02/1993)
131 FOURTH AMENDED, SUPPLEMENTAL AND SUBSTITUTED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND COMPENSATORY DAMAGES AMENDMENT by Ia Protection Adv, Jenalee Sturtz, Pamela Schuler, Archie Pratt, Amanda Poulos, Michael Monahan, Pauline Crouse, Evert Conner to (sm) (Entered: 02/26/1993)
130 ORDER by Magistrate Mark W. Bennett granting motion to amend complaint [128-1] (cc: all counsel) (sm) (Entered: 02/25/1993)
129 MEMORANDUM by Ia Protection Adv, Jenalee Sturtz, Pamela Schuler, Archie Pratt, Amanda Poulos, Michael Monahan, Pauline Crouse, Evert Conner in support of motion to amend complaint before Magistrate Mark W. Bennett [128-1] (sm) (Entered: 02/04/1993)
128 MOTION by Ia Protection Adv, Jenalee Sturtz, Pamela Schuler, Archie Pratt, Amanda Poulos, Michael Monahan, Pauline Crouse, Evert Conner to amend complaint before Magistrate Mark W. Bennett (sm) (Entered: 02/04/1993)
127 STATUS REPORT by plaintiff Ia Protection Adv, plaintiff Jenalee Sturtz, plaintiff Pamela Schuler, plaintiff Archie Pratt, plaintiff Amanda Poulos, plaintiff Michael Monahan, plaintiff Pauline Crouse, plaintiff Evert Conner (sm) (Entered: 11/18/1992)
126 STATUS REPORT by Jeanne Nesbit, Sandra Scott, Terry E Branstad, William E Campbell, Michael Davis, Larry Jackson, Charles M Palmer, Michael V. Reagen, Dfts'and on behalf of Plas' . 1993. (sm) Modified on 11/17/1992 (Entered: 11/17/1992)
125 ORDER by Honorable William C. Stuart ; Final pretrial cnf (MAG) cancelled ; Trial continued , ; Settlement ddl 11/16/92 (cc: all counsel) (ld) (Entered: 09/09/1992)
124 ORDER by Honorable William C. Stuart denying motion to continue (remove from trial calendar) before Honorable William C. Stuart [122-1] (cc: all counsel) (ld) (Entered: 08/31/1992)

https://ecf.iasd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?866891946007347-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:iasd - Docket Report

Page 28 of 29

08/31/1992
08/26/1992 08/07/1992 03/18/1992 01/24/1992 01/17/1992 12/03/1991 11/19/1991 10/30/1991 08/23/1991 08/01/1991 07/16/1991 04/24/1991 03/29/1991
03/15/1991

123 ORDER Continuing Final Pretrial Conference by Magistrate Mark W. Bennett ; Final pretrial cnf (MAG) MWB 9/8/92 at 10:00 a.m. -- This will allow Judge Stuart sufficiant time in which to rule on plntfs' motion to remove from trial calendar. [#122] (cc: all counsel) (ld) (Entered: 08/31/1992)
122 MOTION by plaintiff to continue (remove from trial calendar) before Honorable William C. Stuart and Status Report. (ld) (Entered: 08/27/1992)
REMARK: per order of 7/14/92 Carroll Lucht suspended from practice/ See Misc. order M-1-20 filed 7/14/92-- Mr. Lucht termed from this case as of 7/14/92. (ld) (Entered: 08/07/1992)
121 ORDER setting ; Trial 9/14/92 at 9:30 a.m. ; Final pretrial cnf (MAG) MWB 8/31/92 at 9:00 a.m. /s/JRR, Clerk (cc: all counsel) w/form order fro final ptc. (ld) (Entered: 03/19/1992)
120 STATUS REPORT by plaintiff's (ld) (Entered: 01/24/1992)
119 STATUS REPORT by plaintiff Ia Protection Adv (ld) (Entered: 01/21/1992)
118 Plaintiffs' STATUS REPORT (ld) (Entered: 12/10/1991)
117 ORDER by Judge R. E. Longstaff granting motion to extend status report deadline before Judge R. E. Longstaff [116-1] ; Status report ddl 12/2/91 (cc: all counsel) (ld) (Entered: 11/25/1991)
116 MOTION by plaintiff to extend status report deadline before Judge R. E. Longstaff (ld) (Entered: 11/04/1991)
115 ORDER by Honorable William C. Stuart ; Status report ddl set for November 1, 1991 (cc: all counsel) (pb) (Entered: 08/23/1991)
114 STATUS REPORT by defendants and plaintiffs. (pb) (Entered: 08/07/1991)
113 ORDER by Honorable William C. Stuart ; Status report ddl August 1, 1991 (cc: all counsel) (pb) (Entered: 07/16/1991)
112 ORDER by Honorable William C. Stuart granting join/joinder [111-1] granting motion for removal from trial calendar before Honorable William C. Stuart [110-1] (cc: all counsel) (pb) (Entered: 04/24/1991)
111 JOINDER by defendants Jeanne Nesbit, Sandra Scott, Terry Branstad, William E. Campbell, Michael Davis, Larry Jackson, Charles M. Palmer, and defendant Michael V. Reagen re motion for removal from trial calendar before Honorable William C. Stuart [110-1] (pb) (Entered: 03/29/1991)
110 MOTION by plaintiffs Ia Protection Adv, Jenalee Sturtz, Pamela Schuler, Archie Pratt, Amanda Poulos, Michael Monahan, Pauline Crouse, and Evert Conner for removal from trial calendar before Honorable William C. Stuart (pb) (Entered: 03/19/1991)

https://ecf.iasd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?866891946007347-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:iasd - Docket Report

Page 29 of 29

12/11/1990 12/11/1990

109 ORDER setting trial before Judge Stuart beginning 5/13/91 at 9:00 A.M. /s/JRR (cc: all counsel) (pb) (Entered: 01/22/1991)
108 ORDER for final pretrial conference before Magistrate Longstaff set for 9:00 A.M. on 5/3/91 /s/JRR (cc: all counsel) (pb) (Entered: 01/22/1991)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:

hs0328

Description:

Docket Report

Billable Pages:

15

10/27/2005 14:16:10

Client Code:

Search Criteria:

4:86-cv-90871-MWB Start date: 1/1/1970 End date: 10/27/2005

Cost:

1.20

https://ecf.iasd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?866891946007347-L_280_0-1

10/27/2005


[CONTENT] December 8, 1986 | Glenwood | Woodward State Hospital-Schools | the United States | District Court | the Southern District ||| the Iowa Protection | the University of Iowa College of Law Clinical Program | the Legal Center for Special Education ||| the State of Iowa | the Division of Mental Health/Mental Retardation | Iowa Department of Human Services ||| Iowa | the Rehabilitation Act | Americans | First | Constitution ||| under 42 | 1983 ||| the following years |||  ||| December 9, 1994 | Magistrate | Mark W. Bennett | Americans | Rehabilitation Act | Due Process ||| Conner v. Branstad | 839 | F.Supp | 1346 ||| 1993 ||| a Consent Decree | Bennett | December 2, 1994 ||| Decree | five-year ||| 1995 | Conner | the "Plan for Community Development | five-year | the Consent Decree |||  ||| 2003 [SUMMARY] On December 8, 1986, a resident of Glenwood or Woodward State Hospital-Schools filed this putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa on behalf of himself and other similarly situated persons.  Plaintiffs were represented by the Iowa Protection and Advocacy Services and the University of Iowa College of Law Clinical Program, the Legal Center for Special Education, and private attorneys.  Defendants were the State of Iowa, the Division of Mental Health/Mental Retardation, Iowa Department of Human Services, and the state hospitals.  The lawsuit challenged Iowa's institutionally-based model of services for persons with developmental disabilities, alleging that the policy amounted to violations of Title XIX of the Social Security Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution.  They brought the case under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

In the following years, the district court granted several continuances.  The defendants moved for summary judgment.  On December 9, 1994, the court (Magistrate Judge Mark W. Bennett) denied the motion in part but dismissed the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act claims and denied that Due Process requires individuals to be in the least restrictive placement available.  Conner v. Branstad, 839 F.Supp. 1346 (S. D. Iowa 1993).  

The parties entered into a Consent Decree, approved by the district court (Judge Bennett) on December 2, 1994.  Among the provisions in the Decree, the defendants agreed to provide individualized treatment plans to class members, provide training and employment opportunities, notify class members of their eligibility to receive community-based services, and develop a five-year plan for creating community support and services.  In 1995, the Conner advisory committee was convened and created the "Plan for Community Development," the five-year plan called for in the Consent Decree.     

According to the PACER docket, litigation continued regarding fees.  Plaintiffs' attorneys withdrew in 2003.  

