garcia v. warring - memorandum of decision and order on plainti … · 08/02/2002 11:52 14135842976...
TRANSCRIPT
-
11:52 1413584297614t40 4 35865711.
?
DISABILITY LAW CTRCPR
HAMPDEN,
aI
i
! COURTI ACTION
PAGE 02
with 504 of the
forth below, motion fbr judgment &I the :
-
11:52 1413584297614: 40 4135865711
P&GE 0 3PAGE
by Board of
-
141358429764135865711
DISABILITYCPR
LAW CTR PAGE 84PCIGE 8 6
08/02/2002 11:52 . 0~/i.T:!J'P~2 TUUI: 40
·-· H: 14 FAX H137371611 HAIIPDEN SUPEJiiOR COURT PAGE
Marla DeJeNs. I believe thoU Palmira[']s condition would +sen and she would require nursing I
home pllc:emcilt if her daugbt"'', Maria DeJesus, is not allo~d to continue 88 her perooila! care
atteodant." }
Jennifer McCannon, a Skills Trainer from Stavros,2 !tstified at the bearing lhat, "Through
' my course of working with them, we've tried many dift'erent!routes, and finding PCA'a and
getting Into Adult Day Programs, and nodlini seems to work! except to have Maria worldng fur
her ntother." (Hearing Minutes ("H.M.'1, at 31). She also c!'preased her belief that Garcia '
would bavc to go to a nursing homt if a waiver was not~ and that wollld compromise the !
qllllltt)' and quantity of Garda's life M well as defeat the JNIPose of the Stavros program. (H.M.,
at 31·32), ~s Brown, 1111. Advocate &0111 Stavros, added th~ '"no nursing home coUld prDVide ..
. 00111p11mblo care that the daughtilr can provide." (H.M., at ~2). She also stated that it would be '
more cost effective for the claughter to provide the .;are ills~ of placin¥ Garcia in a nur!ing
home. (ll.M., at 33). .
' On June 26,2001, the Board of Hearings (Levin. M.t H.O.) denied the plaintiffs 11ppeal
llld held that the DiviBion correctly determined thai DtiesliS may not be paid as her mother's
PCA:
~In the case at haod the reaulation is clear. MassHe$1th does not allow for family members to be paid as a PCA. 130 CMR 422.402 dtfines a fauilly mClllber as a chlld, spOWIO, parent, son-in-law or daughter-in-law. The ~llant's 'ream' testified in a vecy credible manner, and documerW:d all the point& they msde. However, while the Hearing Officer is sympa1hedc to the appellant's situation, rile regulation does not provide fi)r 411Y exceptions, or for tile ability to gntD.t a waiver. Unfl)rtunately, this appeal must be denied."
1 StaVl\'lS Center for Indepenclent Livina, Inc.;tbe fiscal intermediary, to which Garcia's primary eare phyllician refemd Garcia. ·
3
-
‘\
08/02/2002 11:52 14135842976 DISABILITY LAW CTR \.\ PAGE 05PAGE 87
@too7
41 Mass. citing
-
14135842976/ lJ& 4135865711--,,-*-
c
DIS&BILITV LAW CTRCPR
PAGE 06PAGE 88
0 questions of fact for of the
43
41 Ct 565,572 (19%).
424
M&.743,750(1997),
5 .
130 42
. * 5
-
11:5208/01/2002
14135842976.’ t 4135865711
DISABILITV LAW CTRCPR
1
!
PAGE 07PAGE
the benefits of the services, of a public
v. 901 F. 471,478 (
PCA the Finally, she!
-
0810212002 11:52 14135842976, 08/0v2002 14:40, VV! AI VA 4135865711. i1 ' ,I 2
)' t I* e *i , , I-' . $1 - . *\. . . *
DISABILITV LAW CTRCPR
I
PAGE 08PiAGE 1 0
l&m
BB/B2/2BB2 08L @!J l~~t
11:52 14:40
4.0.1.1 .L'II; J.O l'llA ~41JfJ"/ Hill
DISABILITY
HAHPDEN SU~!OR COl~
argue1 that, if the Division does not pay her dauahter, she wil~ be placed in a nursing facility in violat!OO. of the il1tegration mandate of the ADA.
. The Division counters that Garcia is not a qualified +vidual with a disability beCIIIJSe
she cannot find a reimbursable PCA under the regulatiOIIll. 4 4 argues that a waiver of a reaso1111b!y necessary progr.un requirements is not a reasonable lWcommodation. The .Divillion
also IISsetU that it dld Mt deey GfiJ"cla beDefits or subject her~ dl~on because of her . ' disability. Rathor, it states that, through no fault of its awn. ~cia cannot meet 111 essential eligibility requirement i
j As an initial mattl:r, contrazy to the Division's asserti~n, tho plainti1'tlw .deqWltely
preserved !ulr dlacrlmination claimS fur this court's review. t Division argues that the •iu&lo . issue tbat ~parties fully litigat&d below was whether "the qlvision' s decision to terminate
' payments tn the Pl8lntiff' s daUghter for personal care servicei rendered to 1he Plaintiff was
PAGE
coll:!i~tent with the Division'• n~gulations." Defen~t's ~sing Memorandum, IIi 13. Gercia counters that she preserved her claims at 1he initial hearing whm sho asked :fur a waiver or an
• i I
e~~•on to the regulation, and that, after the Disability Law!Center began to represent her, her I I
. ' request for a rehearing inc!~ her dlSt:rllnlnation claims. Plllinliff's Reply MernonndUOI, at 1·
: '
3. Tbe a~y had full opportwrity 10 addzess Garcia'~ di'~on claimll but declined 1o do
so when it denied Gareia a rehearing. Under these olroums,ces, Garcia's psesent
di&criminlltion cbims are properly before this court. i Oarcla is a qWl1lfied iudividual for purposes of the JA. The Division has already
I i I
4 · The Division concedes that it is subject to theiADA. Defendant's Opposing Memorandum, at 15, n. 11 , It also does not dispute that the *laillti.ff is disabled. ld,. at 16.
7 ! i ' I
lib010
-
08/02/2002 11:52 14135842976 DISABILITV LAW CTR03/0lJ2002 14:flE 4135865711ue/ A/V4 CPR‘ PAGE 11@
II. I
to her only I
8
i
-
08/02/2002 11:52 14135842976 DISABILITY LAW CTR14: 40 4135865711 CPR
1
PAGE 10PAGE 12
IPCA. He expressed for I
unable to with a waiver to the it
is the only who can her e
-
08/02/2002 11:52 1413584297614:40 4135855711
??? ?? ? ?? ? ? ??? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ? ?? ?
DISABILITY LAW CTRCPR
COURT
PAGE 11PAGE 13
July of the court